About Me

I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom.
I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated unidentified trolling will be deleted as spam.

The comments came as interviewer David Remnick prodded Obama on the issue of marijuana policy in the midst of a whopping 15,000-word profile of the president.

Obama said, "As has been well documented," Obama said in response to a Remnick question, "I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol."

But is it less dangerous, Remnick asked?

It is "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer," Obama conceded. "It's not something I encourage, and I've told my daughters I think it's a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy."

"Middle-class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do," he said. "And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties. We should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing."

And thus, the administration's hands-off policy toward marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington:

"It's important for it to go forward because it's important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished."

But then, the professorial president argued the other side of the issue.

"Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that's going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge."

“I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

===

What we are OK with is drug abuse being treated as a medical issue rather than a law enforcement issue.

Why is that so difficult? Our government is still under the influence of corporatists and puritans.

156 comments:

The President is a hypocrite. He admitted to snorting cocaine when he could get it, as well as smoking marijuana - and yet he's all about prosecuting the drug war on people that use/sell that drug - among others.

The drug war is not really grey areas issue. Its pretty black or white. You either think people have a right to run their own lives and make their own decisions - or you don't.

I don't think the government should treat drug use as a health issue. I don't think it should address it AT ALL.

That is why I said last post and I'll say it here again - The Libertarian Party IS THE ONLY PARTY in the United States that supports ending THE ENTIRE drug war by decriminalizing all controlled substances.

Yeah, he probably is when it comes to drug policy. But more dauntingly, and a million times more dangerous to the vast majority of Americans, he stands behind and supports a corporatocracy -- as does the Libertarian Party.

There's never been a a single episode of someone overdosing on Cannabis. Not one.

There's never been a a single episode of someone overdosing on Cannabis

I don't care if people are OD'ing on pot every five minutes. Everything is dangerous. If you drink to much water, you can die. Its not the government's job to tell citizens what is good for them, and worse enforce that with laws that lock citizens up.

Law Enforcement knows they will never stop drug use. They KNOW IT. They have simply turned it into a cash cow through civil asset forfeiture, which in my state is horribly abused. Medical marijuana is a joke. Its nothing. What is needed, is a legal end to government control of drugs - starting with decriminalization of controlled substances. And ONLY the Libertarian Party supports that.

Free0352: "What is needed, is a legal end to government control of drugs - starting with decriminalization of controlled substances. And ONLY the Libertarian Party supports that."

Should only a medical doctor be able to prescribe non-over-the-counter medications?...or should every pharmaceutical be available at the counter of 7/11, and on the shelves of Malwart -- without a prescription?

And, just like the two major wings of the Corporate-State, the Libertarian Party's ideology marches lockstep with the current political paradigm in supporting a corporatocracy.

"Its not the government's job to tell citizens what is good for them, and worse enforce that with laws that lock citizens up."

Should jaywalking be legal, or driving at any speed? Should driving without headlights at night be up to the individual only?

Should food on the grocery store shelves not have to be labeled with its ingredients?...or the sanitary conditions where the food is made or processed be inspected for cleanliness?

I think the government has a huge role in letting people know what's good for them or not good for them. It needs to be bigger than it is now.

or should every pharmaceutical be available at the counter of 7/11, and on the shelves of Malwart -- without a prescription?

Why not?

Should jaywalking be legal, or driving at any speed? Should driving without headlights at night be up to the individual only?

Now you're being silly. Libertarians aren't anarchists. If what an individual is doing doesn't directly affect another - then it should not be regulated. Taking drugs does not directly affect anyone. They (including marijuana) have horrible consequences to the user in most cases - but it isn't government's job to protect people FROM THEMSELVES. Only from OTHER PEOPLE.

I think the government has a huge role in letting people know what's good for them or not good for them

Marijuana causes lung cancer. So why not with that if you see government's role is that of a nanny?

Yes, Obama, like the two presidents before him, is indeed a hypocrite on drugs. Given the president’s job is to execute and enforce the laws of the land, they may be excused somewhat during their first terms, but after two...hypocrites.

Pharmaceuticals without a prescription?

This should not be casually generalized, for it’s not as simple as the harmless weed actually. The cancer claim is quite “Doobie”ous. ;-) Maybe if someone smoked forty joints a day... But nobody does that. Definitely not as carcinogenic as tobacco. And there’s no question of safety when it is orally ingested, as long as you don’t drive wacked out. Most of us would agree impaired driving is also a public safety issue.

However antibiotics are another matter. If everyone buys them for the common cold or other problem not requiring antibiotics, it will lead to an increase of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is where medically prescribing it is a public health matter. Other drugs like prednisone can be dangerous if taken without a prescribed regimen of tapered dosages. Ignorance of drugs can be lethal. There's nothing wrong with government provided information on drug safety.

As with sales to minors, there should be some common sense regulation of certain substances. It’s not an all or nothing proposition. Once again a health issue, not a law enforcement issue.

Yes, Obama, like the two presidents before him, is indeed a hypocrite on drugs.

Oh give Bill Clinton a pass. He didn't even inhale you know...

The cancer claim is quite “Doobie”ous

No its not. Its patently obvious that inhaling smoke into your lungs causes cancer.

Definitely not as carcinogenic as tobacco

Equally carcinogenic - but that isn't the point. I'm not for controlling tobacco either. People have a right to decide if they want to do things that damage their health.

Most of us would agree impaired driving is also a public safety issue.

Agreed.

However antibiotics are another matter

That is a fair point. I'd also argue the American Medical Association could police that as well as government could. But having made a fair point, you go full nanny state by suggesting that people don't have a right to take an oral steroid... and yet DO have the right to take something that can impair them for up to thirty days... (THC can stay in the brain tissue that long. Just because you aren't high anymore, doesn't mean its not having an effect on you. This has been proven many times.)

Once again a health issue, not a law enforcement issue

I would say its a NON-issue. It isn't government's job to play mommy to grown adults.

(THC can stay in the brain tissue that long. Just because you aren't high anymore, doesn't mean its not having an effect on you. This has been proven many times.)

Again, I’d like to know where you got your information. The drug war mongers are no more honest and accurate than the Iraq war mongers were. Insisting marijuana causes cancer is as hollow as those...certain aluminum tubes. ;-)

People are not impaired, or under effects, for a month on a single dose. Metabolites remain in fat tissue, NOT the psychoactive elements within the brain. You fall for the drug war lie that it impairs people weeks later. And you don’t seem to understand marijuana is an effective treatment and relief for cancer patients.

This article from the American Cancer Society is more about the issue of cannabis being used medicinally than about it being carcinogenic.

But results of epidemiologic studies of marijuana and cancer risk have been inconsistent, and most recent epidemiologic studies have not found a substantial effect on cancer risk. It’s possible that some of these differences are due to the fact that most marijuana smokers don’t smoke as much or as often as tobacco smokers.

See? Just like I told you.

Your misinformation is proof that safety warnings and accurate information from our government, (not law enforcement, but the CDC and public health agencies) would indeed be useful. Is it “nanny state” tyranny that warns us that lead is toxic and tobacco causes cancer? If so, that is what Americans want, and it is perfectly appropriate under “promoting the general welfare”. Why are you against helpful public health information? And why do you equate a medical prescription of steroids with prohibition? Nobody goes to jail for it, they just make more money in sports.

It’s fine that you don’t care. It’s not fine to pass on misinformation. It can be a non-issue to you. For others it matters.

Its common sense that smoke being inhaled into your lungs is bad for you. Dave, smoking marijuana harms your health. Its a fact. This is why we DON'T need safety warnings on things like tobacco or marijuana - literally every adult in the world knows inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.

As for TCH impairing your brain, it does. THC molecules are stored in fat, and your brain is basically nerve tissue suspended in fat tissue. Hence, stored THC is heavily concentrated IN YOUR BRAIN. Just because you don't feel high anymore (dopamine release cycle ended) does't mean marijuana isn't still impairing you. Obviously the more you use, the more impaired you are going to be. A person who smokes 1 joint per month will be less impaired than someone who smokes 4 per day.

This from Johns Hopkins study done in Greece -

"We found that the longer people used marijuana, the more deterioration they had in these cognitive abilities, especially in the ability to learn and remember new information," said study author Lambros Messinis, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of the University Hospital of Patras in Patras, Greece. In several areas, their abilities were significant enough to be considered impaired, with more impairment in the longer-term users than the shorter-term users."

So no, marijuana isn't good for you. Its terrible for you. It impairs your judgement on some level dependent on use for weeks and can give you lung cancer.

Free, you are dangerous. You truly are ill informed. And, then your rebuttal..."Yes, we all know that you think"...is blanket rejection of his being ill-informed. You do not have a clue as to who I am, where I have been and what I do. Let me clue you... you whimsical nonsense is great source material. I can not make it up as quickly as you throw it out. Fiction at it's ludicrous best.I do like the exchange with Jerry.....

Free just offers opinions rarely backed up with referenced facts. Opinions are just that -- opinions, and his usually have little to do with reality.

Let me give you a sourced fact then Jerry. The Libertarian Party IS THE ONLY PARTY that supports a total end of the drug war.//

...which reinforces Jerry's observation of Free as an Opinion Slinger. The fact of the matter is.....There are NO Libertarians in any major elective office. At best, and this is from the Libertarian Party's own website, those elected who do have the Libertarian Party listed as their Party of standing, are minor functionaries of the ilk of School Board, Water Board commisionars, small to...wn mayor's and councilmen. http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

Despite what Free says, and regardlfess of any Plank in a National Libertarian Party Plank, it is dubious, at best, that those individuals favor cannabis decriminalization, and even if they do favor such, are not in any role, position or office, to effect such legislation.

Even the darling of the Libertarian Party, Rand Paul, is a registered Republican.

They Libertarian Party, as an entity, as about as much chance of electing a politician of stature as Quebec hosting the Super Bowl. No, I must rephrase...Quebec may have a chance.

Free, do wipe the drool from you intellect. It is unseemly and comic....at it's best.

Thanks for not answering my question about where you got your information. So you show a study of less than 50 subjects under who knows what circumstances since we have to pay to see the damn study.

Yeah, stoners get stoned. Maybe people in a clinical setting deprived of their choice to do so exhibit less than cooperative and earnest behavior for the examiners. This is not evidence of cancer or your other claims.

Your opinions remain unfounded. Unfounded opinions, believing what you want to believe, aka your idea of “common sense” and repeating drug war lies, impair the brain more than marijuana from what I’ve seen. Willie Nelson isn’t as arrogant and ill-informed as you are. And he seems to remember a lot of music. One thing is certain; weed does not destroy brain cells like alcohol.. Ever tip a few, son?

I'm very well informed. And your characterization of me as "dangerous" shows your fear. Why you're afraid of little old me? You say its because I'm ill informed - implying that if I were well informed I'd agree with you and not be dangerous anymore.

Classic authoritarian complex. You'd have made an excellent Gestapo agent in a different life.

Thanks for not answering my question about where you got your information.

Dave, it is well known marijuana isn't healthy for the human body as it is well known that alcohol isn't healthy either. And it impairs, for weeks.

OK I’ll accept the heavy frequent cannabis users could have a problem. Anything can be abused. But the fact remains the weed is still less toxic and less dangerous than booze, Tylenol and aspirin and practically every other substance. But your claim of it causing cancer is less sound than its actual use in TREATING cancer.

So, if the Libertarian Party is soooooo, ah, valid....that must be why there are sooooo many significant,important and nationaly relative elected Libertarians after almost 55 years, right? So relative that you have admited you do not vote for them....that you do not vote at all. Now, that is what I call really getting behind you beliefs.

sheesh, say, which Libertarian are you NOT going to vote for in the next election?

...and speaking of rebuttals...I did call you boring...and you have never refuted that,and, as your writing indicates, can not substantiate otherwise.

Thanks for your link. So may we assume you trust that source on climate change too?

I was half expecting this silly argument. Its as if to say - if I agree with the one, I have to agree with the other. Well, I don't. A person can be right on one subject, and wrong on another. But lets flip that around, since you agree with them on global warming why not agree with them on marijuana?

Perhaps weed, as it claims, CAN impair thinking, memory and learning for weeks after use.

I think it does. I'd also note that I nor does the Libertarian Party care. People have the right to do things for fun that are a bit unhealthy. Like smoke cigarettes... or even smoke marijuana.

OK I’ll accept the heavy frequent cannabis users could have a problem. Anything can be abused.

Cannabinoid are what causes the impairment. Most clear a healthy human body in 30 days. These are the chemicals that impair the body. Obviously the more of them you have within you, the more impaired you are. Its the same with any drug - like alcohol. Obviously if a 200 lbs man drinks 1 beer in a four hour period he is slightly impaired. If he drinks 24 beers in a four hour period he is much, much more impaired. Marijuana works the exact same way - only unlike alcohol which clears out of the average body within 8-12 hours after drinking - marijuana takes much longer. At least weeks.

So while I'll argue that marijuana (or alcohol) is not a healthy choice and those under its influence shouldn't operate any heavy machinery... its still not government's job to tell them they can't use it or possess it so long as the use doesn't endanger anyone else. By all means get stoned if you want... just don't drive.

But your claim of it causing cancer is less sound than its actual use in TREATING cancer.

I don't see why that should be confusing. Firstly marijuana isn't being used to treat cancer, it's used to alleviate the symptoms and the side effects of cancer fighting drugs. No idiot would tell you that smoking anything couldn't possibly cause lung cancer. Inhaling smoke directly into the lungs is terrible for your lungs.

If you've ever seen a person go through chemo therapy Dave, you know those drugs are as toxic to the body as the cancer cells they fight. So in short, we harm the body to try and save it when doctors administer chemo or radiation. That causes very NASTY side effects that some people smoke marijuana to try and alleviate. I think this is a terribly foolish thing for a person already with cancer to do. But I say - its also a free country. As for marijuana in pill form, I've read some promising things about turning marijuana into a pill that can replace phenegran as an anti-nausea drug.

It means once upon a time, a bunch of Whigs broke off from their party and formed new party called The Republican Party. Its efforts ended slavery in America. At the time though, lots of Democrats and Whigs told them things like -

So, if the Republican Party is soooooo, ah, valid....that must be why there are sooooo many significant,important and nationaly relative elected Republicans after almost 55 years, right?

Glad they didn't listen, because the Whigs were not an abolitionist party. At that time The Republican Party WAS THE ONLY party of abolition. People said they were crazy when they founded it.

Same is true today of the Libertarians.

say who did you vote for in the last election?

I didn't, because the Republicans got my party thrown off the state ballot. I could have wrote in, but I chose to participate in a boycott instead. You do understand the principles behind a boycott don't you? Or do I need to explain that to you the same way I had to explain the history of the Third Party System to you... like I was talking to a six year old child?

Here's betting Okijim has to look up what Third Party System in America means. Right now we're in the Fifth Party System, and I'd like to see America move on to the sixth.

Not a silly argument at all. If you are giving us that source as verification of a point, then they are either to be trusted or not. One way to verify is to see where they get their information. Unlike the marijuana claim, they sourced their climate change to studies.

That makes that latter, not the former, more verifiable. Your opinion is the one they left undocumented.

I still have yet to see a study showing yours and livescience's claim. Are you basing your opinion on a study of less than 50 heavy users that we can't even read?

Here's an article with links to 20 studies saying marijuana inhibits cancer cells and other benefits.

ah, your anger is showing. The anger management classes must not have worked.

of course I am aware of the American Party System...and also aware that NO splinter third party has ever managed to elect a President. Even those with some clout...The old Bull Moose Party, The Green Party, et al had marginal impact over any duration.

My Point...which flew right over your head...is that you seem to only think in terms of two parties...claim that you did not vote because the Republican Candidate you favored was not on the ballot, or some such, Now espouse Libertarian values, that you did not vote for...and there must have been such candidates on the ballot in the election you did not vote in.

"As for the Libertarian Party... once upon a time there was no Republican Party. There were only Whigs and Democrats." ~Free (early in thread)

so..in your efforts to teach me civics....you tell me there are many parties, yet, avow that there were only TWO parties at one jucture, when in fact there have always been many. In fact, Free,there still is a form of the Nazi party. You would make a good storm trooper.

oh, and I still am a member of a PoliticaL Party...though not a very big or active one.

I admit, hypocrisy irritates me. And claiming I'm ill informed while you lack a basic grasp of high school civics when I don't is clearly hypocritical.

NO splinter third party has ever managed to elect a President

Except the Republican Party, when it splintered from the Whig party.

claim that you did not vote because the Republican Candidate you favored was not on the ballot

No. My candidate was NOT a Republican, he was a Libertarian. My Libertarian candidate was on the ballot, and the GOP got him kicked off it. Since my choice for President was removed, I boycotted the election. There is no moral superiority in participating in an unfair election in which the color of law was used to disqualify a candidate with who otherwise would meet the requirements to be on the ballot.

you tell me there are many parties, yet, avow that there were only TWO parties

OMG you can't really be this clueless can you? Go read my link again. Try taking notes. A sixth party system doesn't have anything to do with the number of political parties there are. There are today quite a few more than six. I'm talking about the eras of political party control in the United States.

Dude, everybody knows that smoking anything increases the risk of cancer. While some chemicals found in Marijuana can be used to kill cancer cells - so can uranium 235 or cyanide. That doesn't make either healthy and doesn't change the fact that smoking stuff - from clove or tobacco cigarettes to a joint - increases the risk of a whole host of cancers.

Many researchers agree that marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens, or chemicals that can cause cancer much like those in tobacco smoke.

Obviously smoking marijuana means... smoking. That causes cancer. As for THC in a pill form; I'd imagine that has its own set of medical effects that I don't claim to be expert in. I wouldn't expect a pill form of THC to approach the level of harmful effects smoking anything would cause.

Its all moot though. I don't care if people smoke a pound of weed a day for purely recreational reasons. Its none of anyone's business and not government's job to force people to make healthy choices. But don't blow smoke up my ass - no pun intended - and try to claim smoking is healthy just because the plant in the cigarette or pipe isn't tobacco.

Don't claim you are anti-drug war when ALL you are is pro weed. From out past conversations you've made it clear you want users of "harder" drugs to be treated like lepers with a health issue - and the dealers of those harder drugs to continue to be targets of law enforcement. I've challenged you over and over to agree that cocaine, heroin or meth dealers (among others) should be free to ply their trades in peace - and you said as much that you thought not. Or have you changed your mind?

Its astonishing to hear you claim to be against the drug war; when all you've ever advocated is ending the rather small portion of it that targets marijuana. The truth readers, is that Dave has argued consistently that government has a vested role when it comes to controlling substances and should use its law enforcement power over dealers and users of drugs he doesn't happen to like - just so long as they don't bother the drugs HE does like. I wouldn't be surprised if its not about the principle of self rule like it is to Libertarians, and instead for Dave its about legalizing his beloved bud so he can smoke it again. He's very bitter about having to take drug tests at the prison he works at you know... So you can see the logic. If marijuana is legalized he can smoke down legally and keep the guard job, and go on guarding the mass of drug pushers sitting in his prison. After all, for the criminal justice system the drug war is GREAT job security.

And of course to avoid talking about that, he'll bring up the Iraq war because... its easier than explaining why crack dealers should do huge mandatory minimum sentences and guarantee his job and pension through their forfeited assets.

Yeah, John, take that huge dose of Free's projection, you "philosopher king". ;-)

Free's on a roll with his unfounded assumptions and accusations again.

No matter how much I say drugs should be a medical rather than law enforcement matter, he wants to accuse me of being pro-drug war.

No matter how often I say nobody should be locked up for possession of any drug, he wants to accuse me of being pro-drug war. Funny how Free see's himself immune to such accusations when he has agreed that selling to minors should be illegal. Isn't that a drug law he supports? Go figure.

Can't argue with a brick wall.

Remember when we pointed out to him the fact he was incapable of understanding what liberals think?

He clings to his prejudices like a true radical Right winger. He seems to actually believe he knows more about what we think than we do. He so loves to dictate our positions for us.

Free is so inconsistent it amuses me....blatant example...quite some time ago he wrote that he did not vote in the last election because his candidate was not on the ballot. At that time I believe it was pointed out to him that there are usually more than one candidate, other issues on most election ballots, but on some errant windmill tilt, he avowed it best to 'boycott'.Now, if this thread, he, ah, straighens out the issue by saying...."No. My candidate was NOT a Republican, he was a Libertarian. My Libertarian candidate was on the ballot, and the GOP got him kicked off it."

now...you cannot be ON a ballot and NOT be on a ballot at the same time. If you have been disqualified, or kicked off....you are not on the ballot.??????????????????

On this thread, as well, he argues for legalization of cannabis at the same time pointing out it's many harms..much in the same fashion anit-legalization forces do.

Merely a Contrarian of epic proportions. It is amusing for a bit,and does provide fuel for a decent characher study,but on the long haul....he brings nothing new....and eventually is just the boor at the party.

//5. Pretty well informed, though he interprets all data through the lens of pre-conceived notions. //

and it begs the question...how can you be well informed when you are locked into preconceived ideas? Many years ago I did not belive, or adhere much, to the idea of 'global warming' feeling that warming patterns were more cyclical. New information now is very clear that the climate is changing due to warming. The information altered my opinion. I am not a scientist, but I do feel information and the analysis of information cannot be separate. Free is a case study of denial....He lauds to no end a Military that requires, no, needs blind allegience and strict adherence to all commands and rules.....claiming that that self same subjucation brings freedom hence his infatuation for a civilization that has no rules beyond what the individual makes for himself.

No matter how much I say drugs should be a medical rather than law enforcement matter,

Okay Dave. Lets ask it again. Should in your mind, crack dealers (for example) be able to ply their trade (TO ADULTS ONLY) legally? Dave NEVER answers this question. Funny...

At that time I believe it was pointed out to him that there are usually more than one candidate

That's a false choice. I can write in or chose Democrats (horrible party) after another horrible party (Republicans) throws my party off the ballot? No thaks. Boycott. The Michigan 2012 Presidential election wasn't legitimate.

now...you cannot be ON a ballot and NOT be on a ballot at the same time

Sure you can. You can be all set to be on the ballot and then the GOP files a lawsuit and then you aren't.

On this thread, as well, he argues for legalization of cannabis at the same time pointing out it's many harms..much in the same fashion anit-legalization forces do

You are incorrect, I'm for legalizing ALL DRUGS. Meth, cocaine, heroin, Extasy, all of them. I think buying using and selling meth for example should be legal. What's wrong with that? I don't think the government should play mommy. I won't tell you METH is good for you, but I don't think its use or distribution should be criminal.

Should in your mind, crack dealers (for example) be able to ply their trade (TO ADULTS ONLY) legally?

Yes, legally.

Legal sales of drugs would be better than black market sales for several reasons. It can be taxed to fund better treatment and health care, and purity and content could be regulated. We should legally regulate and tax drugs like alcohol and tobacco. We should also have fact based public drug safety education, instead of making policy that fits the political ends of special interests. And here's one you won't like. Amnesty. Restore all voting and employment rights for those who lost their jobs and their freedom to the drug war.

And in cases of abuse, they should treated as medical matters, not law enforcement.

Legal sales of drugs would be better than black market sales for several reasons

Fair enough, I stand corrected. The Libertarian Party is the only party that agrees with that.

And here's one you won't like. Amnesty. Restore all voting and employment rights for those who lost their jobs and their freedom to the drug war.

I don't know why you would think I wouldn't like that? I'd turn drug offenders out of the prison system. If I were president and couldn't get the law changed, I'd at last pardon them.

As for employment, employers have to decide what is safe on the job. I can see not allowing someone who pops hot on a drug test to not work there, and conduct urinalysis as a condition of employment. We already discussed how marijuana can impair for weeks - thats why. I think we can all agree we don't want meth addicts operating heavy machinery.

And in cases of abuse, they should treated as medical matters

I don't think we should treat it at all. That is a personal problem - not the tax payer's.

Free0352: Why not? (in response to my asking whether every pharmaceutical drug should be available at the counter of 7/11, and on the shelves of Malwart -- without a prescription.)

I think Dave made a thoroughly and comprehensive response, later, when he asked about antibiotics, and you conceded he was right (and, by association, I was right) when you replied "agreed". Moving on...

"Libertarians aren't anarchists."

I view them as anarchists. Your arguments have never convinced me otherwise.

"If what an individual is doing doesn't directly affect another - then it should not be regulated."

Or, put another way, if what an individual is doing directly affects another, then it should be regulated.

Yet you will not take this same stance when it's applied to corporate entities.

Why is this?

"Taking drugs does not directly affect anyone."

Yet you mention the following, in this same post, as a response to Dave (1/30 at 10:24PM):

"As for employment, employers have to decide what is safe on the job. I can see not allowing someone who pops hot on a drug test to not work there, and conduct urinalysis as a condition of employment."

I have a difficult time seeing how your two statements are compatible.

"They (including marijuana) have horrible consequences to the user in most cases..."

Define "horrible" consequences. Plus, please reveal your evidence "in most cases". I'm not sure that I can even remotely agree with this. It sounds like a bias opinion -- as much as the statement that all people of Puerto Rican descent are stupid.

"...but it isn't government's job to protect people FROM THEMSELVES. Only from OTHER PEOPLE."

Should government have a role in protecting people from the abuses of corporations?

By the way, I noticed that you either unintentionally failed to reply to my following inquiry, or you chose to ignore it. I'm going to give you a second chance:

"Should food on the grocery store shelves not have to be labeled with its ingredients?...or the sanitary conditions where the food is made or processed be inspected for cleanliness?"

Libertarians believe in small, limited government. Anarchists believe in no government at all.

There, you're a smarter person for reading that.

when he asked about antibiotics, and you conceded he was right (and, by association, I was right) when you replied "agreed".

I also said the American Medical Association is a better choice to control that, not government or the DEA/FDA. So not exactly Jeff.

I have a difficult time seeing how your two statements are compatible.

Getting high on heroin for example doesn't effect anyone. Getting high on heroin and driving a bull dozer can and often does. The crime shouldn't be taking the heroin, it should be driving heavy machinery while impaired. Get it?

Should government have a role in protecting people from the abuses of corporations?

Sure.

Of course I'm pretty sure our views as to what abuse is are probably a lot different, and the mechanisms to do the protecting aren't the same.

Should food on the grocery store shelves not have to be labeled with its ingredients?...or the sanitary conditions where the food is made or processed be inspected for cleanliness

Sure they should. I think government is the least competent to do the inspecting.

What do you think would be more effective regulation? Getting a "B" on the health inspecting vs an "A" or getting sued for making someone sick and paying tens of thousands of dollars or more? That is a job for the courts, and if the courts are good at anything, its awarding plaintiff's money.

cannot win an augment based upon logic, truth and reality

Logic, truth and reality? Tell us again Jeff how they snuck into the WTC with the thermite?

"I also said the American Medical Association is a better choice to control that, not government or the DEA/FDA. So not exactly Jeff."

So you're advocating that a trade organization be the enforcing body for the control of pharmaceutical drugs? How well do you think that would work?

"Getting high on heroin and driving a bull dozer can and often does."

You conveniently ignored the bold print of "including marijuana", I see. Why do you always insist on making comparisons when there are none?

"Of course I'm pretty sure our views as to what abuse is are probably a lot different, and the mechanisms to do the protecting aren't the same."

Something I can agree with you about.

"Sure they should. I think government is the least competent to do the inspecting."

I don't think government is the least competent, it's just the better alternative to what libertarianism proposes -- which is self-policing, or none at all.

"What do you think would be more effective regulation? Getting a "B" on the health inspecting vs an "A" or getting sued for making someone sick and paying tens of thousands of dollars or more?

Once again, it's a money issue which you always conveniently ignore. What chance do I have against a team of hundreds of corporate lawyers that a Monsanto, or the beef industry, for example, employs.

As wealthy as Oprah Winfrey is, she learned her lesson the hard way when confronted by the beef industry and suit was brought against her for libel. The jury in the case found that the statements by Winfrey did not constitute libel against the cattlemen, however Winfrey no longer speaks publicly on the issue.

"Logic, truth and reality? Tell us again Jeff how they snuck [sic] into the WTC with the thermite?"

Well, I never told you a first time. If you can recite where and when I did, please refer it to me.

Since you brought it up (again), I'll repeat what I've already mentioned on countless occasions before. This question would best be answered in a real court of law, within the state of New York, where the crimes were committed. It's really not implausible that explosive materials could have been moved into the buildings, and charges placed, while under the guise of some other routine or non-routine upgrade or maintenance of facilities. There are records of floors being closed off, within the weeks prior, and upgrades to the elevator system being conducted, so it's certainly not an impossibility. Again, this should be left to a court of law to determine.

Since there isevidence of thermite existing in the building's dust, expounding on the plausibility of someone getting it into the building isn't a priority at this point. The fact there was thermite within, leads to the inescapable proposition that the buildings were blown up. That being the case, by definition it was an "inside job". Recall, without the help of explosives set within, Newton's First and Third laws of motion would have prohibited those buildings from collapsing as they did.

It's pure science, but I forgot that you place ideology above the realm of science. (Maybe I'm making a huge assumption here -- are you familiar with Newton's laws of motion?)

Nations don't defend themselves or their allies by magic. In fairness I'm more aligned with the GOP and Dem party on national defense than I am the Libertarian Party. But even the most hard core Libertarian recognizes the need for some level of national defense that doesn't envolve disbanding the Army.

So you're advocating that a trade organization be the enforcing body for the control of pharmaceutical drugs? How well do you think that would work?

Why not? I think it makes a lot of sense to have doctors policing doctors instead of suits in a far away capital policing something they don't understand. I for one have no business policing a doctor - yet if I worked for the FDA I'd be part of that and a great many of paper pushing non-doctors are doing it right now through the FDA.

You conveniently ignored the bold print of "including marijuana", I see. Why do you always insist on making comparisons when there are none?

Do you really think its safe to be high on marijuana and running a bull dozer? Don't you think companies - or government for that matter- need some way to prevent that?

which is self-policing, or none at all.

I think self policing often effective, and when its not the courts do a great job of it. There is nothing like a multi-billion dollar judgement to serve as a warning to others. Just ask BP how expensive it is to fuck up running one oil rig!

What chance do I have against a team of hundreds of corporate lawyers that a Monsanto,

Ask BP, who spent billions upon billions as a result of their last oil spill. Ask tobacco companies who spent billions in settlements. People win and settle lawsuits against major corporations literally every day.

The fact there was thermite within,

Nuff said. This is when liberals like Myste slowly back away from your kookery.

Free0352: "But even the most hard core Libertarian recognizes the need for some level of national defense that doesn't envolve [sic] disbanding the Army."

I never made claim for no national defense -- only no standing armies. I'm very Jeffersonian in this belief.

"I think it makes a lot of sense to have doctors policing doctors..."

I don't. It makes as much sense as the pharmaceutical industry policing itself, or Big Oil policing itself, or the food industry policing itself.

"Do you really think its safe to be high on marijuana and running a bull dozer?"

Probably not. No more safe than being pumped up with legal drugs such as Abilify, Cymbalta, Effexor, Exelon, Imitrex, Lyrica, Pristiq or Rozerem, to name just a few. But these drugs would be waived, if and when detected through standard urine drug screening. If cannabis were detected 29 days after ingesting, there certainly isn't any danger in driving a bulldozer today.

"Don't you think companies - or government for that matter- need some way to prevent that?"

Probably do, yet it's one of those areas that isn't just black or white. I certainly feel it's a violation of civil rights, yet, as usual, if you have the money and the lawmakers behind you, your rights are certainly more equal than those who don't.

"I think self policing often effective, and when its not the courts do a great job of it."

I think you're wrong.

"Just ask BP how expensive it is to fuck up running one oil rig!"

BP literally got away with manslaughter. Their fine was tantamount to a slap on the wrist. The devastation to the Gulf's ecosystem will probably not be fully realized for decades. This is an area where individuals shouldn't be able to hide behind the legal entity of the corporation. Executives of BP should have been prosecuted for criminal offenses, tried before a jury, and sent to prison if found guilty of their crimes. But that will never happen. Justice was not served.

"Ask BP, who spent billions upon billions as a result of their last oil spill. Ask tobacco companies who spent billions in settlements."

As I said, they got away with a slap on the wrist. (And so has big tobacco.)

"People win and settle lawsuits against major corporations literally every day."

And their settlements are a drop in the bucket compared to the penalties they don't pay due to willful criminal malfeasance in so many cases.

"This is when liberals like Myste slowly back away from your kookery."

Once again, you're attempting to rely exclusively upon the Red Herring fallacy of argumentum ad populum. I'm very impressed that you know what dwells within the mind of John Myste and other liberals. This must be a power acquired through your ideology of libertarianism. Will I also acquire this ability if I revoke my membership in the trust of critical thinking and the rule of law?

By the way, you never answered my previous question. Are you familiar with Newton's laws of motion? Either way, you should find this very interesting.

The two are the same thing. Welcome to the 21st century where militaries have to be professional. And yes Jeff, last thread alone you wanted to disband the Army. You do realize that is what "DISBAND" means, not having a standing Army... you do know that right? What are you suggesting? "The Militia?" What other 17th century solutions do you suggest to solve modern problems?

No more safe than being pumped up with legal drugs such as Abilify, Cymbalta, Effexor, Exelon, Imitrex, Lyrica, Pristiq or Rozerem, to name just a few

I have no idea what any of those drugs do so I really can't say - I'd say a DOCTOR should probably be the one to make that call. Be that as it may - obviously if you are impaired you shouldn't be driving a bull dozer. And companies should have a reasonable mechanism to prevent that. Urinalysis would seem to be the most logical tool.

Their fine was tantamount to a slap on the wrist.

Well if you think 40 billion dollars is a slap on the wrist...

And their settlements are a drop in the bucket compared to the penalties they don't pay

It doesn't make any sense to pay penalties when there are no damages. If there are damages, its a simple matter for a jury to figure out what they are and award a judgement.

Once again, you're attempting to rely exclusively upon the Red Herring fallacy of argumentum ad populum

Yes. Very. You're not, but no amount of logic will convince you or your ignorance. Like Rachel Maddow said, you believe this stuff because it makes you feel good... not because there is any logic or science to it. That's why 9-11 twoofers have become a scientific punchline to what has become a very old and sad joke.

Don't take it from me - you can read all these peer reviewed papers.

Oh wait, you won't because it won't make you feel better about yoruself.

Uh, oh. The middle link has something to say about Free's conspiracy minded group, the John Birchers.

Obviously they cannot be trusted, right? Oh wait, they can be selectively trusted as Free is prone to do.

First, the scale of this theorizing extends well-beyond the tight-knit and devoted but relatively small communities such as The John Birch Society, UFO enthusiasts, and militia groups that have previously represented Journal of Literacy and Technology conspiracy theorists.

//one obscure passage about the John Birch society... who I support in their efforts to fight communism.//

Co-founded by Fred Koch....rich Plutocrat.

The Birchers are nuts...those that are left. Buckley did not like them, Eisenhower did not like them, Ayn Rand did not like them.

''In 1962, William F. Buckley, Jr. editor of the main conservative magazine the National Review, denounced Welch and the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged the GOP to purge itself of Welch's influence.[39]

In the late 1960s Welch insisted that the Johnson administration's fight against communism in Vietnam was part of a communist plot aimed at taking over the United States. Welch demanded that the United States get out of Vietnam, thus aligning the Society with the left.[40] The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called "mass medicine"[41] and saw as a communist plot to poison Americans.[42]

The JBS was moderately active in the 1960s with numerous chapters, but rarely engaged in coalition building with other conservatives. It was rejected by most conservatives because of Welch's conspiracy theories. Ayn Rand said in a 1964 Playboy interview, "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism ... I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naive and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas."[43][44]

Former Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson — a leading Mormon — spoke in favor of the John Birch Society, but in January 1963 the LDS church issued a statement distancing itself from the Society.[45] Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and various religious groups criticized the group's acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons. These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas.[46][47][48] Welch rejected these accusations by his detractors: "All we are interested in here is opposing the advance of the Communists, and eventually destroying the whole Communist conspiracy, so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world in which to live."[49]

In 1964 Welch favored Barry Goldwater over Richard Nixon for the Republican presidential nomination, but the membership split, with two-thirds supporting Goldwater and one-third supporting Nixon. A number of Birch members and their allies were Goldwater supporters in 1964[50] and some were delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention.

In April 1966, a New York Times article on New Jersey and the society voiced — in part — a concern for "the increasing tempo of radical right attacks on local government, libraries, school boards, parent-teacher associations, mental health programs, the Republican Party and, most recently, the ecumenical movement."[51] It then characterized the society as "by far the most successful and 'respectable' radical right organization in the country. It operates alone or in support of other extremist organizations whose major preoccupation, like that of the Birchers, is the internal Communist conspiracy in the United States."

Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, "Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes." He went on. "With regard to ... Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason"

Okay Dave. I'm an avowed anticommunist. I don't apologize. Its a horrible system with more blood on its hands than any other. But one thing I'm not is a kook holding on to wild conspiracy theories. You are, and some of them are downright creepy.

In some past posts on your own blog you told us how you believe someone other than Al'Qaeda was behind 9-11, and Israel secretly controls - or at least at one time controlled - the the Navy and the US government. Here you are in your own words.

Who does Dave think was behind 9-11? He's not sure...

Based on that lack of evidence I have no suspects. Their withholding evidence would certainly tend to expand, rather than narrow, the suspect list if I had one.

So Dave - over the last month have you figured out like the rest of America who is behind 9-11? Who "they" is? LOL

**HINT** It was Al'Qaeda under the orders of Osama Bin Laden. But Dave's not sure.

What hit the Pentagon? I didn't see what did it. And a secretive Bush Administration and military won't show any evidence. THEY told us it was a plane. But THEY wouldn't show any evidence.

Oh wait, now Dave is kinda sure it was the Bush Admin.

And this-

Maybe it was a plane, or some other missile. I'm in no position to say.

Yup, kookery. And when I pointed that out, I got this

YOU are the one demanding unquestioning belief in the Bush government propaganda.

Its not just BUSH, its also every fucking elected Democrat. Even full blown leftists like Noam Chomskey. But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory - especially when George W is your prime suspect.

Then there is Dave's kinda creepy, borderline anti-semitism.

Have you seen all the AIPAC puppets clamoring to undermine the negotiation process with Iran? Nobody gets into the White House without AIPAC approval. Kissing up to them has practically become mandatory for presidential candidates.

Eeew. Yuk. And there's more of it...

Don’t you know it is essential to both parties to have their presidential candidates speak at AIPAC, unlike nearly all American organizations? Or are you talking about the unanswered questions about 9-11?

Thank you for quoting my points. You not only failed to refute their accuracy, you could only recoil like a girl seeing something icky on her plate. And of course, you just have to make up more accusations, so my statements can’t be that “magical”, let alone conspiracy theories.

you told us how you believe someone other than Al'Qaeda was behind 9-11, and Israel secretly controls - or at least at one time controlled - the Navy and the US government.

I recall saying 9-11 suited the agenda of more than just AQ. Your neocons were practically longing for a “new Pearl Harbor”. And obviously 9-11 was a boost for the Israeli far Right’s agenda. As we note your outrageous accusation of “creepy, borderline anti-semitism”, also note, I never broadly paint the “jews” as you do your best to presume I do. You don’t even care to give them a capital letter.

You totally missed, or forgot to quote me saying AQ hijacked the planes. But that statement is based more on trust of authority than actual legal evidence. I merely said I didn’t see the evidence of what hit the Pentagon. I allowed for the possibility of a plane. Why don’t you and Pentagon show us the evidence?

I suppose to an authoritarian personality it seems “magical” to merely question authority.

But one thing I'm not is a kook holding on to wild conspiracy theories

So would you care to explain what aluminum tubes are you talking about? Sounds like another of your scary conspiracy theories.

Very creepy...and deadly cult beliefs. Not to mention incredibly expensive.

Again, YOU are the one demanding unquestioning belief in the Bush government propaganda.

And that indicates your authoritarian nature. You still believe in your authoritarian leaders’ conspiracy theories spewed about Saddam and al-Qaeda, or his “nukular” weapons programs, or vast stockpiles of WMD’s.

So tell us about the commie fluoride in the water conspiracy. Are the Birchers pro-tooth decay, or just nuts?

What other obvious things do you want evidence for? The sky being blue, that things fall to the ground when you drop them? The evidence is overwhelmingly out there - but instead you adopt a wild conspiracy theory and now you're trying to back track on it because you've realized how kooky it makes you sound... unlike Jeff who has no idea how kooky it makes him sound and so he freely spews is kookness. You've got enough sense to bob and weave - but it comes through. I got you, in your own words.

I suppose to an authoritarian personality it seems “magical” to merely question authority.

Its not "magical" to question reality. The only magical thinking here is Jeff's delusions about red phosphorous and you entertaining the possibility that someone shot a missile into the Pentagon on 9-11.

So would you care to explain what aluminum tubes are you talking about?

3, 2, 1, bang. You can set your watch to it. Nobody cares about some tubes other than you Dave. You're the only one who talks about it. The United States did not invade Iraq over tubes of any kind. Everyone knows that.

YOU are the one demanding unquestioning belief in the Bush government propaganda.

Really? Bush propaganda? What do you call it when Democrats like Obama fight the war in Afghanistan? Yeah, its not "Bush" propaganda - nor "propaganda" at all.

So tell us about the commie fluoride in the water conspiracy. Are the Birchers pro-tooth decay, or just nuts?

When was that? Like 250 million years ago? Like the 1950s? Dude, what other things that are ancient history do you want me to answer questions about? I'll tell you what - I'll talk about the JBS's old argument on fluoride and you can answer for the 1800s policy of the Democrat party on Indian Removal. Don't like that one? How about the Jay Treaty of 1794 and it's impact on modern foreign relations. All three of those age old topics are equally relevant to this conversation - as in not relevant at all.

How about the not-so-obvious plane that hit the Pentagon for a start? Got some photos to show us? Any at all? You see, it looks like a cover-up, whether it is or not. If it’s a reason to go to war, then it shouldn’t be covered or withheld. “Trust me” doesn’t work for us non-authoritarian types who question, instead of blindly believing, authority.

I said 9-11 fit the agenda of the neocons who lusted for war in Iraq. If “9-11 was a boost for the Israeli far Right’s agenda” is anti-Semitic in your view, then obviously I’m anti-American in your narrowly limited vision.

Why not call me anti-American as well as anti-Semitic? Since you are equating accurate characterizations of Right Wing elements as being anti-Semitic, you can accuse me of being anti-everything, because of the radical Right authoritarian elements pervading our world.

Only a typical authoritarian personality would believe such ideologically blind stupidity.

So what tubes ARE you talking about? The ones presented as evidence that constituted Iraq’s “nukular” weapons program? The tubes that were used to support the lie about Iraq’s “nukular” weapons program in the authorization that led to the invasion? Those tubes? That lie?

YOUR conspiracy theory is the one that has been proven false.

Yet you must remain a true believer. It’s in your authoritarian personality. It is inconceivable that you and your authoritarian leaders could be wrong, let alone dishonest.

In reality, BOTH are true.

Oh, let's add more evidence to my claim that your "libertarians" are nothing more than Republicans.

“To some, ‘libertarian’ scares people. Some of them come up to me and they say, ‘I kind of like you, but I don’t like legalizing heroin.’ And I say, ‘Well, that’s not my position. I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican.“ – Rand Paul told the Washington Post

Since you are equating accurate characterizations of Right Wing elements as being anti-Semitic

The assertion that Israel controls the GOP (or either political party) feeds into the well worn "International Jewry" conspiracy theory... you know... how Jews through banking and political lobbying secretly and nefariously influence the governments of the world.. one apparently you buy into one some level in addition to your 9-11 truth bullshit.

9-11 being an inside job is wacky and stupid. Thinking Jews control the Navy or run our politicians is down right creepy as fuck.

So what tubes ARE you talking about?

I'm not talking about it. That was my point. No one but you brings that up.

It is inconceivable that you and your authoritarian leaders could be wrong, let alone dishonest.

You know me... a blind follower of Barack Obama (who's on my side on this one.)

AIPAC is a powerful Right Wing lobby, not for “the Jews”, but for Right Wing Israeli interests, neocons, and the American fundamentalists that remain their sheep. Lobbies are intended to influence politicians. Is that news to you?

Acquiring power to responsibly influence issues of Jewish concern – as showcased by the AIPAC conference - should be a source of pride for U.S. Jews, without any need for apologetics or overstated fears about an anti-Semitic backlash.

Power of influence, they say?

Since they agree with me, it looks like it’s up to you to tell those Jews they’re wrong, sport.

AIPAC is an awe-inspiring organization, but the right-wing tilt is in its DNALike a good defense lawyer, AIPAC highlights facts that promote its client while repressing evidence to the contrary. The Israeli right is expert at that.By Israeli standards, AIPAC is a right wing organization, almost by definition. While its leadership has steadfastly tried to hang on to its bipartisan appeal in America, the core message of the group is one that corresponds completely to the worldview advanced by Israel’s right.

See? Just like I said. But as an authoritarian, you know better, right?

Now you have TWO issues of ideological purity for them to take as lessons from you. I look forward to a copy of your email correcting Haaretz.

You want to play your Right Wing race card because you refuse to debate my actual words, only your prejudices. We’ve long seen this is a typical Right Wing authoritarian behavior.

It is inconceivable that you and your authoritarian leaders could be wrong, let alone dishonest.

That had nothing to do with Obama like you pretended, of course. Once again you need to play your insincere and dishonest tactic.

This is the real context you cowardly avoided:

So what tubes ARE you talking about? The ones presented as evidence that constituted Iraq’s “nukular” weapons program? The tubes that were used to support the lie about Iraq’s “nukular” weapons program in the authorization that led to the invasion? Those tubes? That lie?

YOUR conspiracy theory is the one that has been proven false.

Yet you must remain a true believer.

And guess who REALLY first mentioned tubes in this thread?

YOU, sport.

You can’t quote a single false statement or belief of mine, as you cling to your conspiracies about evil climate scientists, air pollution with no climate impact, and all the lies of your war-mongering authoritarian leaders.

That guy is an idiot. And if I had to guess, he probably doesn't like me. For starters, I'm Hispanic. Second, I have fought side by side with many Muslims, and put my life on the line for them and they for me. But this is what liberals do, try to hold up some ridiculous caricature and try to equate the me with him. Truth is I'd rather defend Mecca than nuke it.

How should I know where the Pentagon security office keeps its records? Are you suggesting it didn't happen?

You are utterly incapable of understanding the difference between asking questions and promoting conspiracy theories.

Right back at you. Your asking of "questions" just proves you're buying into the 9-11 truth conspiracy theory.

I look forward to a copy of your email correcting Haaretz.

I'm not talking to him, he's not here. I'm talking to you. And just so no one forgets, I used YOUR words to call attention to your creepy conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the government. The oldest conspiracy theory I know of.

That had nothing to do with Obama like you pretended, of course.

Obama does not believe that a missile hit the Pentagon. He accepts the 9-11 Commission report in full, as do I. On the issue of the events leading to, during, and after 9-11 Obama and I are in 100% agreement. Further, Obama supports the Afghan war - as do I.

And guess who REALLY first mentioned tubes in this thread?

As I recall you did, but if you want to stop talking about an irrelevant subject thats fine with me.

You can’t quote a single false statement or belief of mine

I quoted several.

s you cling to your conspiracies about evil climate scientists

There is a big difference between skepticism of a research method and the wild idea that someone not Al'Qaeda just happened to shoot missiles into the Pentagon on 9-11 and that Bush was propagandizing to cover it all up. But of course Dave you'll grasp onto false equivalency to distract from your wild conspiracy theories and borderline antisemitism.

Twists and distortions? You mean where I quoted you verbatim? And I didn't bring up any tubes Dave, I predicted you would - because you always do when you get flabbergasted. And you didn't disappoint. So now you'll call names and cry about "bad faith" and blah blah.

And the first argument I made at the beginning of this post and last post is the same.

The Libertarian Party is the only national party that is for ending the drug war. You've NEVER been able to refute that point. But instead of agreeing you've spent two posts now trying to argue otherwise or change the subject or scream names and cry about bad faith to do anything other than admit that

1. You draw a drugwar paycheck

2. The Libertarian party has the best stance of drug issues of any other party.

You hate the fact those tubes represent a conspiracy/lie you still believe in. Yes we get that.

And no, asking questions is NOT the same as embracing any theory.

This is only in your authoritarian head.

Now to your points.

1. You draw a drugwar paycheck

Nonsense. This is your choosing to frame all law enforcement and corrections under your simplistic and false accusation of being the "drug war". This accusation is like you being called a war criminal. Except you actually killed people defending their country from invaders. I never legislated drug laws, arrested, or sent anyone to prison. My pay is from the taxpaying public in exchange for the safety and security I provided in public service. It is nothing like the asset forfeiture/legal piracy by law enforcement's drug war.

2. The Libertarian party has the best stance of drug issues of any other party.

I never refuted this because it is true. But since most "libertarians" are really just Republicans, as Rand Paul admits is his case, it means nothing relative to reality.

to frame all law enforcement and corrections under your simplistic and false accusation

Many are. I wasn't at first when I was in LE... then that started to change. My education didn't come from reading about it - it came from seeing it. Civil asset forfeiture and the racist application of sentencing. A real turn off for me - so I left. I couldn't not be a hypocrite and work in that system. I simply judge people by that same standard I judged myself. Now if you are pro drug war and you work in LE, you aren't a hypocrite. And most LEOs are very pro drugwar. But I wasn't, and to keep my integrity I realized I couldn't participate in it anymore. If you are anti drugwar, I'm lost how you can work in a system that locks up so manny people for such stupid reasons.

But since most "libertarians" are really just Republicans

In case you haven't heard, Libertarians are this whole other party. And they have some very serious differences with the GOP on MANY issues. They aren't basically Republicans.

I literally just got done posting that sentencing in many areas is racially discriminatory against minorities. My point being that a black guy (or hispanic guy) and a white guy would get two different sentences for the same crime (with the same criminal record or lack there of). For that matter women get much more lenient sentences than men with the defendant having the same charges and background. I highly doubt old Archie would have something like that to say.

But that wouldn't jibe with the caricature Okijim would rather argue with instead of me. Instead of logic its easier to label me some old, racist, white straw man instead of dealing with the actual me.

I don’t embrace any theory. I think every theory, as well as the “official” story, should be open to question. “Trust me” shouldn’t be adequate reason to believe any version. I just want to see the evidence. Why is asking for a photo or video of the plane hitting the Pentagon unreasonable to you? Why is that for you, the same thing as accusing Bush of doing it?

And why do Benghazi and the IRS audits of tax exemption requests need more of an investigation than 9-11?

One theory explaining the lack of investigation is 9-11 fit the agenda of a certain Administration’s interests, in addition to AQ’s. This is not saying “Bush did it”, but Bush and his cronies certainly capitalized on it. One thing for certain is, we who questioned the Bush Administration on both Iraq and 9-11 were called traitors.

Questioning is not tolerated well by authoritarians. You either buy their dogma or are regarded as an enemy.

As I recall not one person was fired or held accountable for 9-11, yet despite people losing their jobs over these matters, Benghazi and the IRS are now conspiracy theories held by the Right against Obama. Do you see my point?

When I took my job, Carter was president and the drug hysteria and madness was cooling down. Then came Reagan. The “system” at every level became more loaded with unjust laws, cruel policies, and stupid priorities. Same with the military and foreign policy. Nevertheless drug war or no drug war, my job is as necessary as you believe yours was, and even more so in the immediate sense of public safety. Invading far off Iraq for our “safety and protection” was much more in the abstract and hypothetical than keeping watch on the real psychotics, sociopaths, and killers in our midst.

And why do Benghazi and the IRS audits of tax exemption requests need more of an investigation than 9-11?

The 9-11 Commission report was quite extensive and was published. Its been reviewed and the VAST majority, 99% of experts agreed with it. Questioning it is fine. Its akin to questioning any other commonly accepted fact. Stupid. And yet you claim its all "Bush Propaganda." When I pointed out that if your contention to that is true - then you'd have Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow and Noam Chomskey all in on the Bush propaganda. You then insinuated they've been intimidated into silence.

Rediculous. Of course the official account of 9-11 wasn't propaganda for the Bush administration - even his worst political enemies and ardent leftists agree with that version of events.

This is not saying “Bush did it”, but Bush and his cronies certainly capitalized on it

How did they capitalize on it? When Bush (with the vast and bipartisan majority in congress) undertook military action against Afghanistan - the country that harbored and most supported those that attacked America? Or when he invaded Iraq - when the Bush administration unequivocally stated Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11.

George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq

One thing for certain is, we who questioned the Bush Administration on both Iraq and 9-11 were called traitors.

I didn't call you a traitor. Did the Bush admin call you a traitor? Or are you butt hurt because some random person said so?

As I recall not one person was fired or held accountable for 9-11

Absolutely the people responsible for 9-11 and a great many other crimes against the American people were held accountable. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were responsible, and were indeed held to the highest form of accountability. Especially when the SEALs tossed Bin Laden's lifeless corpse off the side of a US Navy ship. That is as accountable as it gets. But how many Americans do you want to blame for the crimes of jihadist fanatics?

No you’re deviating from context again. Your straw man is back, as I told you often happens. I never said the 9-11 reporting was Bush propaganda.

"Bush Propaganda" was about his lies about AQ and Saddam being in cahoots. Or those tubes that were the “evidence” of a “nukular” weapons program. Lies. Propaganda. And more lies.

How did they capitalize on it?

By fear-mongering the people and winning elections through war fever in revenge for 9-11. Have you seen how many times 9-11 is mentioned in the war resolution? They did their best to link Saddam and AQ....and you know that. All you can do is spout that the direct lie about Saddam and 9-11 was not uttered, but that’s what the public was led to believe. During the run up to the invasion, a majority of Americans were brainwashed into thinking Saddam had something to do with 9-11. It’s called Propaganda. Even Bush said that in his comment about “catapulting the propaganda”. You’re amazingly disconnected from reality on so many levels, as you cherry pick everything but Bush’s lies. You’re a “Good Republican” and true authoritarian follower in that sense, no matter what else you say.

In 1999 Bush told his ghostwriter author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz, “'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade,. if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Herskowitz was replaced as Bush's ghostwriter after Bush's handlers concluded that the candidate's views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.

And there you have it. You’re welcome.

As I recall not one person was fired or held accountable for 9-11

I mean those whose job it was to take AQ seriously enough to work to prevent such an attack. “Your ass is covered” from the Decider as he dismissed the famous August of ’01 PDB showed the Administration’s indifference. They kicked Richard Clarke out of Cabinet meetings even.

THAT accountability. That is also why he needed the political capital as a “war president”.

Not directly. When you are claiming that the official report of the 9-11 commission is propaganda - then obviously when Bill Maher says this in total agreement with the Bush administration's report on 9-11, or Rachel Maddow basically says the same thing then they are either correct or spreading... what did you call it? Propaganda. So which is it in your mind Dave? Oh, you said - when you claimed these two were somehow pressured. Or are you retracting that?

That isn't a straw man Dave - you actually said that. Remember? Or do I need to go dig up that quote too?

They did their best to link Saddam and AQ.

They tried to link Iraq to 9-11 by... drum roll please ... unequivocally denying Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Saying so in public, many, many times.

Funny way to establish a link...

and you know that.

Mind reader now Dave? Truth is I know better because I read what they said.

but that’s what the public was led to believe

Yes... the Bush administration lead the public to believe Iraq was behind 9-11 by repeatedly saying Iraq was not behind 9-11.

Doublethink.

And there you have it.

Have what? That Bush said he'd cash in political capital to accomplish his agenda? I'm quite sure. That is what every President has done. I mean all of them. Its pretty much their job.

As I recall not one person was fired or held accountable for 9-11

I think Osama Bin Laden was definitely fired. As in shot in the face. I think that is pretty damn accountable. Along with thousands of his fellow terrorists who are now quite dead.

I don't hold a single American responsible for the crime of Al'Qaeda. I don't blame the victim. Doing so is despicable.

I mean those whose job it was to take AQ seriously enough to work to prevent such an attack

Should Admiral Nimitz and General MacArthur have been fired in the wake of Pearl Harbor then?

Give me a break...

They kicked Richard Clarke out of Cabinet meetings even.

Because he's a worthless analyst. The guy said "Al'Qaeda is determined to attack America!"

That's intelligence on par with saying water is wet. Its not actionable. He was a big mouth who said obvious things and then claimed he predicted it all. I'll make a prediction for you right now - Al'Qaeda will again at some point in the future again attack America.

Am I ready to be the nation's top anti-terrorism advisor yet? I just did what Clarke did.

So you are saying “Trust me”? LOL. Show us the quote if you want to argue it. Keep your straw men in your head. The bullshit is up to your eyebrows.

Look again at what I said was propaganda. It’s called propaganda.

“denying Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.” Do you realize every quote you gave was AFTER THE INVASION!!!

How about BEFORE the invasion?

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons." - George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17 2003

"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - Bush in October 2002.

"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." - Bush in January 2003 State of the Union address.

"Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." - Bush in February 2003.

And some more after the invasion:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." - Bush June 17, 2004.

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” - George W. Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

......and you know that.

Mind reader now Dave? Truth is I know better because I read what they said.

All those quotes are news to you? Right. Amazing authoritarian personality Yeah, you read alright. HA. Tell us another whopper,.

This is classic authoritarian think:

Free: How did they capitalize on it?

I showed you. And said And there you have it.

Free: Have what? That Bush said he'd cash in political capital to accomplish his agenda? I'm quite sure.

What kind of person argues like that? Authoritarians.

Should Admiral Nimitz and General MacArthur have been fired in the wake of Pearl Harbor then?

Give me a break...

The commander at Pearl Harbor was held accountable for blunders. YOU don’t deserve a break at all. You refuse accountability for your lies and distortions and for refusing to engage in good faith discussion.

If there's anything worse than a bore it's a dishonest bore.

Your refusal to argue in good faith shows utter disrespect for others.

Whatever you did that earned respect in the past is now undermined by your glaring lack of good character and honesty.

Whatever you did that earned respect in the past is now undermined by your glaring lack of good character and honesty

This is what Dave does, the throws NOTHING but ad hom attacks and cries when answered by being called on his personal inconsistencies. He'll always retreat to insults and name calling because he's literally got nothing else.

Dave...but he is funny. Seriously...the script is in it's second rewrite....Ad hominum is certainly something he learned here...you can notice other significant patterns of speech that are not present in his previous, ah, dissertations, ah, diatribes. What I find is that he seems to have taken a proprietory stance on your blog.

well, anyways....there is a Kafkaesque essence to the boy that has it's moments when you relenquish a belief in his representative humanity and intellect. A bore is a bore.... unless he is a boor.

And did you show us where Bush said Iraq or Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 before the invasion?

You still can't produce one quote where they said Iraq was behind 9-11, on any date at any time.

Because they never did. This seems just another incarnation of yoru rather bizarre obsession with things George Bush never said.

Ad hominum? YOU dare

Oh yes, I dare. The difference between you and I, is I call you on intellectual and moral inconsistencies with your posts and you sling names like a child.

Bush capitalized...

There you go by inaccurately summarizing my posts. What I said - was that of course Bush had a Presidential agenda. Every President has one of those. Did he try to accomplish it? Of course. What you are suggesting is he erroneously linked Iraq to 9-11. He never did, ever. Your entire line that the Bush administration used a link between Al'Qaeda and 9-11 is completely false.

describing your behavior. As does authoritarian.

Free believes in fewer laws, fewer police, less government power and fewer rules. Free is an authoritarian.

Doublethink.

your Cult Bubble that has nukular aluminum tubes,

Ah there it is again, as predictable as a sunrise. Nobody cares about aluminum tubes dude, except you.

Now go whine some more about Dave the bully

You have to be kinda tough before you can be a bully Dave, and you can't even stay on one subject without talking about random tubes or Dick Cheney or Vietnam or some other weird thing. We all know getting you to stay on one subject is like nailing jello to a wall.

Dave finally admits we Libertarians are the most right on drug policy - if only in a backhanded way. Will Dave vote Libertarian? Of course he won't. Will Dave keep participating in a criminal justice system funded by the drug war? Of course he will. There is all the evidence of conviction you need on Dave's drug war stance. He'd trade some silly notion of "social justice" socialist cretins are selling him for some real justice on that issue along with many others. Justice that voting Libertarian would provide. When it comes to opposing the drug war, Dave is a bit of a fair weather soldier. He's all for ending it... unless it means actually doing something against it. Its painful for him to even admit -let alone VOTE against- the American left... which is pro drug war.

If you want to have some credibility on the issue Dave, stop standing with the left wing that is for everything you claim to be against.

But of course you knew that. And the fact that you see that (misspoken) statement as correct clearly shows you buy into a wild conspiracy theory that the Bush administration had some role in the 9-11 attacks... other than being one of the targets of the attack.

We all know that Bush/Cheney admitted the fact Saddam didn't do 9-11 AFTER the invasion.

No we don't know that. How on earth could the Bush Administration say they didn't invade Iraq over 9-11 BEFORE they invaded Iraq. That wouldn't make any sense.

No. Why not?

Bush made it VERY clear who was responsible for 9-11. That's why. From the very beginning everyone knew it was Al'Qaeda since they'd attacked the WTC before, along with the USS Cole and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But those simple facts don't jibe with your confirmed bias towards some advanced knowledge 9-11 was an inside job conspiracy theory.

Jeff,

do you believe the American people have been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what occurred on 9/11?

How on earth would I know what I haven't been told if no one told me. But by all means, share with us your super secret classified information you got off the internet.

Also, considering I was in Afghanistan by late November 2001, do you think maybe "I" might know something you don't?

, that this allows you special insight into what happened that dreadful day, my answer is no.

You don't think we collected any intelligence while in Afghanistan?

More distraction and evasions.

No, its you being moronic. How or why would George Bush state he didn't invade Iraq because of 9-11 before he ... invaded Iraq. That wouldn't make any sense and it punches gaping holes in your "prior knowledge" conspiracy theory.

So to answer your question -

Yes, by telling the whole world who WAS responsible - Al'Qaeda. He didn't bring Iraq up because they had nothing to do with 9-11 and were irrelevant to the conversation.

Now answer this Dave - Why would George Bush mention Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 in a speech when he was invading Afghanistan? What other countries that had nothing to do with 9-11 should Bush specifically mentioned had nothing to do with 9-11? Perhaps Cameroon or Canada? After all, they had as much to do with 9-11 as Iraq did.

As for claims Iraq aided terrorist groups and that Al'Qaeda had key leadership in Iraq prior to the invasion, that has been well established. Everyone knows Iraq was a patrol of Islamic Jihad out of Jordan, which aided Al'Qaeda in 2001 in Afghanistan against us, and later merged with Al'Qaeda.

Meanwhile, BEFORE the invasion, that place where Free fears to tread, we have:

On the December 9, 2001, edition of Meet the Press, Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11," and the vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks.

Richard Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Saddam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way." Mr. Clarke was incredulous, he said in [his] book [Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, March 2004)]. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded.Mr. Bush answered: "I know, I know, but ... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred," according to Mr. Clarke's account.

Well, obviously you'll believe anything, I suppose. Considering that the 47-story WTC 7 building, is never mentioned, not even once, in the government’s 9/11 Commission report, this already confirms that the government has not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what occurred on 9/11.

Sins of omission count as lies, also.

"But that doesn't validate your wild conspiracy theory Jeff."

And neither does it invalidate it. As a matter of fact, my "wild conspiracy theory" is much more likely than the fairytale the government attempted to pawn off as the truth.

As previously mentioned, many times, the real science of physics, and how certain laws are indisputable in our natural and physical world, makes the government's conclusion improbable at best.

It doesn't matter what Noam Chomsky says (or Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher). If I want expertise or analysis concerning science, I turn my attention toward a scientist -- not a linguist (or a popular TV personality...or a comedian).

"You don't think we collected any intelligence while in Afghanistan?"

Whether you did, or didn't, isn't the issue here. It makes no difference, because Newton's laws of motion cannot be disputed, or adjusted, to make the outcome different -- despite what juicy little tidbits of "military intelligence" (an oxymoron, if ever there was one!) you claim you discovered. Unless, of course, the collapse of those buildings was exempt from these laws. Since we know that can't be the case, there's really only one other explanation.

vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks.

Some say yes, others no. What we do know for sure was Iraq wasn't behind 9-11 and nobody in any administration ever said they were. Any attempts to say any administration ever said thatisn't true. Flatly isn't true.

Richard Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11.

Sure. Would you not have looked at every possible suspect to figure out who just killed 3000 Americans 24 hours before? They did look at Iraq, and came to the conclusion that they weren't responsible for the 9-11 attacks. They didn't say so before the run up to the invasion of Iraq because it wouldn't have made any sense. They were too busy talking about who was responsible. Al'Qaeda and Afghanistan's Taliban. Your assertion Dave that Bush not talking about an irrelevant subject to a 2001 conversation proves only that Bush wasn't trying to blame 9-11 on Saddam Hussein.

It may be FEMA's "contribution", but it never made the official 9/11 Commission Report. Please cite the pages of the official 9/11 Commission Report where the collapse of WTC 7 is explained -- much less mentioned.

"It clearly mentions tower 7 and concludes the primary cause of its collapse..."

What is "it"? The FEMA report? I asked about the 9/11 Commission Report, remember?

"So no, Jeff. It mentions this report several times."

Again, I specifically asked for references to the WTC 7 collapse cited from the official 9/11 Commission Report. Please humor me and find the page numbers for me.

"Have you actually read the 9-11 commission's report?"

Have you?!?!

"This portion of the report specifically deals with tower 7."

This "report" is not the official 9/11 Commission Report. Based upon your response, I can only assume two things: (1) You don't know the difference between the two, or (2) You know the difference, but intentionally decided to lie.

Personally, I think you decided to lie. That's all you can do.

As previously mentioned, it's clear that the U.S. Government did not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

it's clear that the U.S. Government did not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes it did. Its narrative is correct. 19 members of Al'Qaeda - a terrorist group based and backed by Afghanistan - hijacked planes on Sep 11th, 2001, and flew two of them into the WTC towers 1 and 2, a third and the Pentagon. A fourth set to target either the White House or US Capital crashed in Pennsylvania. These crashes did catastrophic damage to the entire WTC area (a lot more than Towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed) and did substantial damage to the Pentagon.

If you had read it, you'd easily be able to cite the pages I'm requesting from you. But you refuse to.

"That is how it happen, and the evidence supports this."

No, the evidence clearly does not support it. That's exactly why there's a growing consensus that "something else" happened.

Let's just leave it right here. You go ahead and keep supporting the official government fairytale, and I'll continue believing what science has taught me. As has been the case through several posts, I've never broached the subject unless you brought it up first. I will continue not to initiate the discussion, and will only respond if you bring it up first.

What "Nukular" aluminum tubes? What "connections" to al-Qaeda? What "biological labs"? What "Nukular" weapons program?

The fact the US elected a leader who can't pronounce "nuclear" is a good indication of why the nation is in decline. The fact that true believer authoritarians STILL believe the lies, and some STILL have access to spew their radical ideology over corporate media is proof we are doomed to permanent war and decline.

Now if it is at all possible, pay attention for once.

We know Bush admitted Saddam/Iraq had no part in 9-11 AFTER the invasion. You have deliberately, stupidly, or dishonestly attempted to argue that straw man.

So have you given up trying to find the Bush/Cheney quote saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 or al-Qaeda BEFORE the invasion?

It seems so.

Good.

My points stand and your evasions and dishonesty are clearly all you have.

But that won't stop you from spewing more of your Right Wing indoctrination, lies and BS, will it?

No. We all know how much an authoritarian personality likes to admit they're wrong.

For someone with no religious beliefs, your Right Wing Bubble Cult beliefs show you to be little different from a Moonie as far as having a free and open mind.

"What lies" sounds no different than "what evolution, the world is six thousand years old".

"What climate change" sounds no different than "What cancer from smoking tobacco".

"Marijuana is a dangerous cancer causing drug" is no different than government "reefer madness".

Now go ahead and repeat your tired lines that Bush admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 AFTER the invasion. It has NOTHING to do with my points.

Your conspiracy websites are not a source. This Alex Jones shit isn't serious.

If you had read it, you'd easily be able to cite the pages I'm requesting from you

Unfortunately my memory isn't eidetic enough to recall specific page numbers in a document that is over 500 pages in length, and many thousands of pages when you look at sources. I linked you the FEMA report, its an accurate, peer reviewed report.

The only consensus is that this is kookery. Even well know leftists wish you twoofers would shut up because you are making them look bad. That isn't a "growing consensus," that is bipartisan support of the official narrative. Only the Alex Jones of the world buy this sillyness.

What "Nukular" aluminum tubes? What "connections" to al-Qaeda? What "biological labs"? What "Nukular" weapons program?

No one cares Dave, about some tubes except you. As for Al'Qaeda - its well documented that members were in Iraq prior to the invasion. Would Saddam have had to marry Bin Laden before you saw a "connection?" Perhaps pose naked in PlayBoy together? Simply having AQ in your country and not cooperating with us to kill or capture them was a breech of the '91 cease fire agreement Iraq signed. As for labs, the burden was on Iraq as per the cease fire THEY SIGNED in 1991. They failed utterly to meet any standard they agreed to and that alone - not to mention firing on Americans over 4000 times - was justification for war.

Bush admitted Saddam/Iraq had no part in 9-11 AFTER the invasion.

He never suggested before either - and your "evidence" that he did make the claim somehow because he never said they didn't isn't proof of anything... other than Bush never suggested Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

Bush/Cheney quote saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 or al-Qaeda BEFORE the invasion?

Bush and Cheney NOT saying Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 when they WERE saying Afghanistan and Al'Qaeda did only goes to prove Bush and Cheney never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. You cannot produce one quote where either accused Iraq or Saddam Hussein of masterminding or even participating in 9-11... clearly if you could you'd have done so long ago. If you had it, you'd be quoting it like crazy. Instead, I've got quote after quote, that when asked - neither claimed Iraq was behind 9-11 and in fact said otherwise.

For someone with no religious beliefs, your Right Wing Bubble Cult beliefs show you to be little different from a Moonie as far as having a free and open mind

You're the one spouting wild conspiracy theories based on assumptions not rooted in reality. As for me taking Republicans on faith - I would note George Bush was following policy set down by Bill Clinton (See Iraqi Liberation Act) and authorized by a bipartisan majority of Congress and the Senate - including a great many Democrats. You could just as easily say I'm taking the Democrats on "faith." Of course I'm not, I'm basing my conclusion on real evidence - not wacko conspiracy sites like Jeff does or a LACK OF SAYING SOMETHING as evidence someone said something. Which BTW your point doesn't make any logical fucking sense.

Marijuana is a dangerous cancer causing drug

Smoking marijuana can cause cancer. So can smoking anything else. Everyone knows that. Its not good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I don't want to ban fast food either, even though it causes heart disease.

It has NOTHING to do with my points.

It would seem your "point" supports mine. President Bush never claimed Iraq was responsible for 9-11. Your attempts to claim that he somehow hypnotized America into war with Iraq by not specifically stating Iraq didn't mastermind 9-11 is a pathetic attempt to hold on to your whack job conspiracy theory when it doesn't stand up to criticism.

Bush didn't claim Mexico or Canada or Uganda or Djibouti or Japan wasn't responsible for 9-11 either. In fact he only mentioned one country - Afghanistan. And he said THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR HARBORING AL'QAEDA. And he was right to say it, and right to attack Afghanistan over it.

So write this down Dave, Bush stated who was behind 9-11, Bin Laden, Al'Qaeda and the Taliban.

You're right, he never mentioned Iraq being behind it. Not even once. He didn't even talk about Iraq until well after the Afghanistan invasion.

You're the one spouting wild conspiracy theories based on assumptions not rooted in reality. As for me taking Republicans on faith - I would note George Bush was following policy set down by Bill Clinton (See Iraqi Liberation Act) and authorized by a bipartisan majority of Congress and the Senate - including a great many Democrats. You could just as easily say I'm taking the Democrats on "faith." Of course I'm not, I'm basing my conclusion on real evidence - not wacko conspiracy sites like Jeff does or a LACK OF SAYING SOMETHING as evidence someone said something. Which BTW your point doesn't make any logical fucking sense.

Marijuana is a dangerous cancer causing drug

Smoking marijuana can cause cancer. So can smoking anything else. Everyone knows that. Its not good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I don't want to ban fast food either, even though it causes heart disease.

It has NOTHING to do with my points.

It would seem your "point" supports mine. President Bush never claimed Iraq was responsible for 9-11. Your attempts to claim that he somehow hypnotized America into war with Iraq by not specifically stating Iraq didn't mastermind 9-11 is a pathetic attempt to hold on to your whack job conspiracy theory when it doesn't stand up to criticism.

Bush didn't claim Mexico or Canada or Uganda or Djibouti or Japan wasn't responsible for 9-11 either. In fact he only mentioned one country - Afghanistan. And he said THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR HARBORING AL'QAEDA. And he was right to say it, and right to attack Afghanistan over it.

So write this down Dave, Bush stated who was behind 9-11, Bin Laden, Al'Qaeda and the Taliban.

You're right, he never mentioned Iraq being behind it. Not even once. He didn't even talk about Iraq until well after the Afghanistan invasion.

DD: What "Nukular" aluminum tubes? What "connections" to al-Qaeda? What "biological labs"? What "Nukular" weapons program?

Free: No one cares...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Here we have the Official Authoritarian Bubble Cult Belief System summed up in three words. The clear essence of an authoritarian personality in all its cold-blooded darkness.

"No one cares"...

Who cares that a nation is led to war by lies and propaganda?

Authoritarians: "NO ONE CARES"!

Normal People: "Everyone should care".

Free's unlearned lesson of the day is: "No one", would actually be everybody, apart from authoritarian true believers.

People of intellect and conscience care very much if a nation is led to war by the lies of its leaders.

People of the authoritarian far Right...they don't care so much.

Interestingly the same can be applied to supporting the US Constitution's mandate to "Promote and provide the general welfare".

Authoritarian true believers need not lose heart. In fact, if they weren't so paranoid, they'd be celebrating their victories over democracy.

Their side is winning. The US Government is sliding far more into service of the economic elites than serving the interests of a democratic representative constitutional republic. Just have a peek at corporate written trade agreements and aggressive militarized foreign policy.

Free should be celebrating John Galt's record profits and unprecedented political leverage.

After all, "no one" cares that the middle class is shrinking and poverty and austerity await most Americans. If anything these are victories, economic suppression of the "no ones" in their war on democracy.

Page 302: "...advised that an engineer in front of 7WTC had just remarked that the Twin Towers..."

And again, that's it!

Page 305: "...a senior OEM official ordered the evacuation of the facility [the south tower], after a Secret Service agent in 7WTC advised him that additional commercial planes were not accounted for."

And, finally...that's all!

So, absolutely none of the references you painstakingly researched have anything to do with the almost zero gravity collapse (i.e., "demolition") of World Trade Center 7. None! Nada! Zilch!

"So, it is mentioned in the report."

Yes, as the location of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). What's your point?

"But these references say nothing at all about the colapse [sic] of the building, or even the building being damaged."

Just as I've contented all along. I wonder why it wasn't mentioned? Gee...

So, I'm going to ask you one last time: Do you believe the American people have been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what occurred on 9/11?

JG,That was from my post. I was pointing out that it is simple to do a search of the report, (no great memory required) and that you are right. Nothing is said in the report about the collapse of WTC 7.

No one cares Dave. Nobody except you talks about aluminum tubes. The war wasn't over tubes. It was over Iraq failing miserably to live up to its 1991 cease fire agreement. You could just as easily say the Iraq war was over some other irrelevant topic, like Saddam Hussein liking pink balloons vs blue ones. Its equally relevant. What is far more relevant, is Iraq firing on US troops over 4000 times. Something you seem to be okay with. Perhaps if trying to kill American troops 4000 times doesn't cross your threshold for war, nothing will. Or perhaps anything George Bush did in your mind would not only be wrong but part of some silly conspiracy you've dreamed up.

The authorization for use of force against Iraq is public record. It doesn't mention tubes of any kind.

Only you do. And you can't deny this... so once again the subject changes. Now we're on to After all, "no one" cares that the middle class is...

Yeah, so we can all agree the Iraq war wasn't over tubes of any metallurgical nature. Guess we better change the subject. As to the middle class, Democrats have been running the Presidency and Senate for over half a decade.

I think we could use a change - not that I think the Republicans would be much of an improvement (Rand Paul and Justin Amash aside).

What would help the middle class, would be government not wrecking the economy with socialism.

Jeff,

So, it is mentioned in the report

Yes, I told you it was. Thank you for finally admitting that. I had no idea PDF's of it were out, I read it having bought it in a book store years ago. I read it while waiting around to invade Iraq in March of 2003.

Yes, as the location of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). What's your point?

I told you, the FEMA report I linked you was cited. It clearly proves all the buildings in New York that happened to fall down on September 11th 2001 did so as a direct result of big ass airplanes crashing into towers 1 and 2. St. Nicholas' got crushed and burned on 9-11 too... was that part of the super secret squirrel conspiracy as well? I mean, it couldn't be that giant fucking chunks of flaming debris fell on it (and tower 7) and set the building on fire - and without fire fighters to fight the fire (because it was too dangerous and many were dead) they collapsed.

I mean, there had to have been millions of ninjas who smuggled in tons of red phosphorous without anyone noticing all to secretly start a war for Bu$HitlerBurton™. I mean, that makes way more sense...

authorization for use of force against Iraq is public record. It doesn't mention tubes of any kind.

As I've told you, the authorization specifically cited, along with numerous mentions of 9-11 and al-Qaeda, an active nuclear weapons program, Aluminum tubes was the “evidence” for that falsehood. That lie was even is the State of the Union Address. THAT is what the public heard.

The public supported the war by believing your Decider and his Big Dick’s LIES. Complain all you want, but that is the bottom line.

It's called "perception management" by your authoritarian leaders.

Now, like an idiot, you’ll ask “What lies” again.... I won’t bother to reply for the umpteenth time.

Corpo-dems suck, but you ignore the crash of ’08 and Bush Recession the Republicans left us. That wasn’t “socialism” that did that, sport. It was a lesson of de-regulated capitalism. You know “libertarian” ideology at its finest. Good thing we have corporate written trade agreements, eh? That’ll lift Americans’ standard of living, right?

That’s some new fangled “socialism” ya got there.

Like fascists, the radical Right needs to scapegoat someone for all this. Liberals are the Jews of your Corporate Reich. Look at who’s raking it in now. Except EVERYONE but your banking/corporate elites will pay for their gains. Austerity for the public, record profits for the elites. Now run along and help them with their economic suppression and class war against the great majority of Americans, even the stupid ones in the Right Wing Cult Bubble who blindly follow the agenda of the elites.

Free0352: "...I read [the 9/11 Commission Report] having bought it in a book store years ago. I read it while waiting around to invade Iraq in March of 2003."

Neat trick! Did Dick Cheney send you an advance copy? (It was publicly released in July, 2004.)

Hey, maybe you ought to read this sequel. It highlights the lies, omissions and distortions.

"Yes, I told you [WTC7] was in [the 9/11 Commission Report]."

Yes you did, but as I mentioned, it was strictly in context to where the base for the OEM was located -- nothing else. There was absolutely nothing about the demolition and free-fall of the building.

Hmm...I wonder why not?

"Nothing is said in the report about the collapse of WTC 7."

Yes, just as I said on several occasions. That's the key omission that sparked my interest, a few years ago, which led me to believe it was an "inside job". Before that, I was ignorant and gullible, and believed the government's storyline -- just like you!

"Not true, it mentions reports that do, and that is the same thing."

Sorry, no it isn't. It's a deliberate concealment and omission. Besides, even FEMA's feeble attempt had them scratching their collective heads as to why a steel-framed building, with only localized exterior damage and localized interior fires, would collapse unobstructed like it did.

"...if you choose to believe that ninjas blew up the WTC..."

Please reference where I made that claim. If you do, I'll hand over all of my assets to you -- my homes, my investments, everything.

I always know I'm winning the argument when you resort to name-calling and the attachment of ridiculous attributes that have no meaning.

Dave Dubya: "His answer, if he had the courage to respond, will amount to, 'No one cares'."

Aye! I totally agree! He'd never agree that the government didn't tell the truth, because if he did, it could possibly distort his whole reason behind wanting to be a marine and soldier. It would invalidate his killing of every person in Afghanistan and Iraq, and make him, in essence, a murderer. It could mean his whole military career was a lie, and that would confirm what I've labeled him as all along...

Free keeps mentioning the FEMA report that he referenced, so I checked the 9-11 Report to see why they referenced his report.

The report he referenced is titled "World Trade Center Performance Study". The 9-11 Report references this FEMA report twice on page 541. Neither reference to the report is for their conclusion about the colapse of WTC7. It is simply for the WTC office space and dimensions.

I've mentioned the far Right as a cult of true believers. Free is one of them. He can't see how his beliefs are no different from a religion or a cult. He was even willing to risk martyrdom for the lies of his Decider.

"What lies?" Nuff said.

From Eric Hoffer's "The True Beleiver"

"The readiness for self-sacrifice is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life. He who is free to draw conclusions from his individual experience and observation is not usually hospitable to the idea of martyrdom... All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth or certitude outside it. The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ."

Free's "holy writ" is a combination of the Randroid cult, the lies of the Bush Administration, and the 9-11/al-Qaeda/nuclear weapons fear-mongering in his sacred "authorization" for war of aggression.

These are his realities. As an authoritarian personality he cannot, and would not, be willing to see anything contrary to his beliefs.

The radical Right ideology is no different from a cult. Free holds to his beliefs as tenaciously as the Taliban. He even shares authoritarian personality characteristics with them, but can't see that fact. It's merely a matter of degree, for both authoritarian religious and extreme political ideologies are deadly to countless innocent lives.

Authoritarian beliefs, whether religious or political, and the indoctrination of others in theses beliefs is the bloodiest curse on humanity.

Who is authoritarian and what does that mean? If your definition of authoritarian is shooting back effectively after Iraq attacked American fighter planes over 4000 times I'd hate to see your definition of anarchy. Its presumably not wrong to fight back when Iraq did that, not to mention tried to murder a US President. Those two things alone are plenty of justification for war. But on previous posts we already established that Dave Dubya doesn't care how many US troops would have to die before being willing to fight. At least not when George Bush is President. Hell, he's against fighting in Afghanistan too - and that was brought on by the murder of 3000 Americans.

That shows Dave's standard for war. Hell, he's told us time and again American's real enemies are here at home in the business community. Though they've shot at American airplanes or hijacked them exactly zero times. It would seem in Dave Dubya's world, making a money or lobbying a congressman is a far greater crime than mass murder.

the authorization specifically cited, along with numerous mentions of 9-11 and al-Qaeda, an active nuclear weapons program

And in that document, please show us where Iraq was accused of masterminding 9-11?

Oh wait you can't. As for Saddam's nuclear program - the burden of proof was ON IRAQ. You can't possibly argue that Iraq was in compliance with the cease fire agreement THEY SIGNED. It stands to reason, that when Iraq violates its cease fire by firing on US troops over 4000 times - you resume fire.

The public supported the war by believing your Decider and his Big Dick’s LIES

What lies? You can't find me ONE quote where anyone from the administration claims Iraq was behind 9-11. You can't possibly claim Iraq was in compliance with the '91 cease fire, nerve gas was found in Iraq after the invasion, Al'Qaeda members were found in Iraq after the invasion.

like an idiot, you’ll ask “What lies” again

That's right, and you'll go into full ad hom gear and cry like a teenage girl because you can't refute a single point I've made with any sort of evidence. Just set impossible standards, change the subject, and call names. Its very typical of you. On your blog no matter what the topic is, you constantly bring this issue up. You should change your blog name to "Dave Dubya's Aluminum Tube Obsession & Creepy Borderline Anti-Semitism."

Liberals are the Jews of your Corporate Reich

In case you didn't know, liberals voted for the Iraq war and don't think 9-11 was an inside job. You aren't a liberal, your an extremist. Most liberals wouldn't have you. You'd fit in much better with Alex Jones than say - Rachel Maddow.

Now run along and help them with their economic suppression and class war against the great majority of Americans

Last I've checked its been the American Left holding the balance of political power (Presideny, Senate) for over half a decade now. If you have complaints, perhaps you might make them to those holding actual office instead of some "Radical Right" straw man. I'm sorry to inform you, but Rush Limbaugh isn't President. Barack Obama is.

And only you Dave would characterize him as "right wing."

But by all means Dave, share with us again how Barack is really part of the corporate(ist) conspiracy.

It would invalidate his killing of every person in Afghanistan and Iraq

Jerry, while I have engaged my weapons on my deployments, I'm fairly certain I didn't kill everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But your point cuts both ways doesn't it? If we admit AL'Qaeda and the Taliban was responsible for 9-11, then it justifies our war there doesn't it? If we admit Iraq fired on US planes 4000 times,was in possession of at least some chemical weapons, that they tried to assassinate George HW Bush, that members of Al'Qaeda were inside Iraq by mid-2002, and that Democrats in overwhelming majority supported both conflicts - then that would justify the Iraq was as well would it not?

By the way, everything I said above is a fact ... and to get around the acceptance of those facts Dave and Jeff adopt wild, reality defying conspiracy theories to fill in the blatant logical inconsistencies of their wild beliefs. Beliefs by the way, that aren't accepted by anyone. Not just "Right Wingers" buy by "Left Wingers" and even "Socialists."

For example: People like Noam Chomskey, Ralph Nader and I probably disagree with a great many things - but we do agree that 9-11 was NOT an inside job.

Free0352: "...he's against fighting in Afghanistan too - and that was brought on by the murder of 3000 Americans."

Since 3000 Americans were murdered, how come it didn't warrant a trial by jury, in the states the murders occurred?

"In case you didn't know, liberals voted for the Iraq war and don't think 9-11 was an inside job."

Let's be consistent here. Liberal doesn't equate to Democrat. Certainly not these days.

Many liberals -- a growing number, as a matter of fact -- believe the war in Iraq was waged under misleading circumstances. Also, a growing number of people, both liberal and conservative, believe that the crimes of 9/11 were perpetrated by others -- not the scapegoats that the 9/11 Commission Report would lead us to believe.

"Most liberals wouldn't have you."

Well, most Democrats wouldn't -- true. Neither Dave nor I have affiliations with the Democratic Party, nor care to. I think we've made this point very clear on past posts. (You're not paying attention, again, are you? Please try to focus.)

"You'd fit in much better with Alex Jones than say - Rachel Maddow."

Considering that Alex Jones describes himself as a libertarian and a conservative, I'd have to disagree with you.

"Last I've checked its been the American Left holding the balance of political power (Presideny [sic], Senate) for over half a decade now."

No, you're definitely wrong about that. More like the "Corporatocracy" -- and it's been a lot longer than five years. (Again, you're not paying attention...)

"Whoops, misremembered. That would be my THIRD deployment, not my second...[blah, blah, blah]"

No surprise. Kinda like how you "mis-accuse", "mis-disagree", "mis-deflect", "mis-ignore", and "mis-dodge", huh? As far as I'm concerned, you were caught in another lie.

As for your number of deployments, personally I don't really care. I don't show gratitude towards tools and mercenaries. Remember?

"If we admit AL'Qaeda and the Taliban was responsible for 9-11, then it justifies our war there doesn't it?"

Personally, I've never admitted to such a story. We'll never know who was responsible until we're able to have a fair trial within the states where the crimes were committed. That's how our criminal justice system works. I recall you saying that you had a degree in political science. You should know this. You've mentioned many times that you believe in the rule of law. Why not in this case?

"By the way, everything I said above is a fact ... and to get around the acceptance of those facts Dave and Jeff adopt wild, reality defying conspiracy theories..."

Facts?! Facts are supported by scrutinized evidence, within the realm of science -- not hyperbole, omissions and distortions of the truth.

I'm looking for the truth. The "facts" as presented don't come close to supporting the available evidence.

share with us again how Barack is really part of the corporate(ist) conspiracy.

Like I need to share the "what lies" again? Why should I? I've shown you a mere sample of the numerous lies from your Liar in Chief and Authoritarian Big Dick.

But here goes, for your edification, or more realistically, neglect.

Obama showed his corporatist/military industrial complex servitude back when he was senator. He voted for Bush's FISA Amendment that pardoned and immunized telecom corporations for being tools for warrantless surveillance.

Obama is now actively working to promote the next corporate written Pacific trade agreement.

This is not liberalism, sport. It is no different from the GOP.

"What lies"?

LOL! Amazing authoritarian beliefs there.

You complain about me mentioning the "nukular" aluminum tubes lie, as you mention them!

Since 3000 Americans were murdered, how come it didn't warrant a trial by jury, in the states the murders occurred?

Because it warranted a war.

Let's be consistent here. Liberal doesn't equate to Democrat.

Ah yes, this is where Jeff and Dave will disqualify 90% of the Democrat party for not being liberal enough. This is how you know they are extremists.

a growing number of people, both liberal and conservative, believe that the crimes of 9/11 were perpetrated by others -

No there aren't. This nonsense has been so debunked twoofers have become favorite punchlines for he likes of Bill Maher.

Considering that Alex Jones describes himself as a libertarian and a conservative

Thats like saying he's both chocolate and vanilla. The two are mutually exclusive. Just shows what an ignorant moron that man is. And you happen to share a lot of the same beliefs, see the 9-11 twoof and the "corpratist" meme.

No, you're definitely wrong about that. More like the "Corporatocracy"

I've shown you a mere sample of the numerous lies from your Liar in Chief and Authoritarian Big Dick.

You mean the REVELATION that because Bush and his staff didn't list every country other than Afghanistan when they were blaming Afghanistan and Al'Qaeda for 9-11 (and later specifically said it wasn't Iraq) that somehow proof they claimed Iraq was behind 9-11. That's not evidence, that doesn't even make any sense.

He voted for Bush's FISA Amendment that pardoned and immunized telecom corporations for being tools for warrantless surveillance.

While I am against warrantless searches on American soil, I am at a loss how you could advocate a prosecuting a company or its employees for cooperating with something the government is forcing them to do via court order. What do you expect google and facebook to do, start a revolution or cooperate and take the amnesty? Be realistic, this was BIG GOVERNMENT flexing its muscles on American citizens - and the company's they own. Its a powerful argument for Libertarianism limited government philosophy. A Libertarian government could never have done this - if only because it wouldn't have had the tax revenue.

Obama is now actively working to promote the next corporate written Pacific trade agreement.

As his predecessor Bill Clinton signed the first one as well as NAFTA. That's because liberals support free trade Dave.

That is part of the LIBERAL policy stance - hence why liberals like Obama and Clinton signed them. Just like liberals like Clinton and Obama expanded the surveillance state. They're for that too.

But the fact remains, MOST Democrats did NOT VOTE to support Bush's war of choice

Just the ones in the Senate and the House. And what do they count... they're only the people Democrats elected and voted for...

This is not liberalism, sport. It is no different from the GOP.

It is a small difference. Which leads me to believe Dave, you're no liberal. You don't seem to agree with them on anything accept lots of welfare and pot being legal. And I'm not even sure all the liberals want to legalize pot.

Iraq was found in possession of chemical weapons. Hint Dave, Chemical Weapons are WMD.

Iraq attempted to have a US President assassinated.

Iraq supported Islamic Jihad.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was a high ranking member of Islamic Jihad (an ally of Al'Qaeda who eventually merged with AQ) was recovering from his wounds he suffered fighting US forces in Afghanistan in 2001 inside Iraq nearly a year prior to the invasion of Iraq. He and many members of his terrorist organization that one day became Al'Qaeda in Iraq.

Iraq was totally belligerent and made almost no effort to comply with the 1991 cease fire it signed.

Nobody said there were no scattered depleted remnants. Your liars lied about “stockpiles”, remember? They lied about Saddam and al-Qaeda being partners. They lied about nuclear weapons program, etc. Remember? Of course you don’t remember what your authoritarian brain won’t accept. You are afraid of the truth and need to embrace the lies. So we invaded over depleted weapons that were never used against us? I don’t recall that rationale. There are a lot of lies that your moral cowardice fails to recognize.

you could advocate a prosecuting a company or its employees for cooperating with something the government is forcing them to do via court order.

Again you missed the point and make up an accusation. I bet you’re unaware not all telecoms eagerly shared wiretaps. Of course you are unaware. Willful ignorance, as with greed, is a virtue on the far Right. But those are the "values" that are impoverishing millions, crushing the middle class, and raping our economy.

Meanwhile the "Galts" are raking it in, aren't they? Of course they are. They own the entire GOP and most of the Democratic Party.

liberals support free trade Dave. why liberals like Obama and Clinton signed them I'm not even sure all the liberals want to legalize pot. ...Which leads me to believe Dave, you're no liberal.

In 1993 Charles Krauthammer disagreed with you: “A majority of congressional Republicans are going to cross partisan lines and support a Democratic president on NAFTA. The majority of House Democrats will not.”

Corporate written trade agreements are acts of corporatism. I’d mention neo-liberalism but you can’t even comprehend regular liberalism. Here’s one for you. Go find any liberal group that promotes corporate written trade agreements. Dare ya,.

You are soooo dense. Only corporatists and willing mangers of a military industrial complex corporatist empire can win the White House.

Thank you for more proof you don’t understand what liberals say. The reason you Right Wing authoritarians hate liberals is you hate what you don’t understand. And that’s a LOT.

Dodging what? All you keep doing is babbling about aluminium tubes that nobody mentioned as a cause for war... except you.

Nobody said there were no scattered depleted remnants

You said there were no WMD. You are somebody. There were, even you admit this.

So for the record Dave admits there was WMD in Iraq. WMD they weren't supposed to have.

Your liars lied about “stockpiles”, remember?

Now you're quibbling over quantity. What was the quantity of WMD Iraq was allowed to have?

Zero. You know that. They had more than ZERO.

They lied about nuclear weapons program, etc. Remember? Of course you don’t

You're right, I don't. Iraq was required to submit to inspections without objection ensuring they had dismantled their program.

They didn't. They played games with inspectors for 10 years. Enough was enough.

You are afraid of the truth

Bullshit. That's your projection. Thats you. All the way. Bottom line, you can't possibly argue that Iraq was in compliance with the '91 cease fire they signed. You don't even care about the US Airmen Iraq fired on 4000 times. You even admitted you couldn't come up with a number of how many would have to DIE before you'd be for shooting back. I assume because you don't care. You see America as the bad guy in the Iraq/America situation. You've made that clear.

I bet you’re unaware not all telecoms eagerly shared wiretaps.

The ones who didn't get classified court orders? Or perhaps they just stood up to intimidation? You're blaming the victim. You know good and well none of these companies would have complied without the threat of government force. Don't blame the victims here Dave.

In 1993 Charles Krauthammer disagreed with you

He's not a congressman or a senator now is he? Votes talk Dave. Liberals supported free trade. If that happened to coincide with the GOP, all that says is free trade has bipartisan support. And largely it does.

Liberals love free trade. If you don't, its just one example of how you have nothing in common with liberals and a lot more in common with Alex Jones - who does not support free trade. For the same exact reasons you don't.

Go find any liberal group that promotes corporate written trade agreements

Here's one. The entire Democrat Party. Oh I forget... they aren't liberals. How convenient for you to disqualify them. I guess they didn't get your memo.

Its not that the Democrats aren't real liberals Dave. Its that you aren't a liberal. You're some sort of socialist radical.

Only corporatists and willing mangers of a military industrial complex corporatist empire can win the White House.

Your religion is quite clear. You are a true believer of the first degree.

Exhibit A:

They lied about nuclear weapons program, etc. Remember? Of course you don’t

You're right, I don't.

Therefore it never happened, right? After being told the truth the authoritarian mind rejects it.

You even admitted you couldn't come up with a number of how many would have to DIE before you'd be for shooting back.

I said “zero” deaths was insufficient for starting a war. But not for far Right authoritarians obviously. BTY Bush didn’t mention anyone being shot in his war mongering SOTU speech. Just “nukular” tubes.

You see America as the bad guy in the Iraq/America situation. You've made that clear.

No. This is oversimplifying. Nothing is clear to you. Both Bush and Saddam were warmongering thugs. They each started wars of aggression.

Don't blame the victims here Dave.

Only a right wing authoritarian would consider corporations a person and as a victim. Did they suffer? LOL!

Only corporatists and willing mangers of a military industrial complex corporatist empire can win the White House.

But a closer, honest examination of his (Obama) policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. ... In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers. – Ron Paul

Where have you been, sport? We’ve been telling you BOTH major parties, along with your so-called “libertarians” are corporatist.

Its not that the Democrats aren't real liberals Dave.

As we said, BOTH parties are corporatist.

Its that you aren't a liberal.

We’ve shown you have no idea what a liberal is.

You're some sort of socialist radical.

In corporatist America, democracy is a radical notion to be suppressed.

Go find any liberal group that promotes corporate written trade agreements

Here's one. The entire Democrat Party.

Failure is your middle name. Wrong again, sport.

Votes on NAFTA

Ds

Y- 102 N -155

Rs

Y- 132 N- 43

The amazing reality-denying Right Wing authoritarian mind on full display. Yet in your delusional world only you know the truth. Only you know what’s really going on....like paranoid schizophrenics, but without the medical excuse.

More projection on your part. You already admitted Iraq had WMD. And if I'm so "right wing" why am I agreeing with Al Gore when he said

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Or Ted Kennedy when he said -

We have known for many years that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction.

Al Gore and Ted Kennedy. The LIBERAL Lion of the senate no less. Tell us all again how those two aren't real liberals as well?

I said “zero” deaths was insufficient for starting a war

How many dead Soldiers does it take before we let our military fight back then?

This is oversimplifying

Its a pure fact. It is THAT simple.

No. Ron Paul even agrees with me by admitting Obama is a corporatist.

Ron also thinks we should go back to the gold standard.

We’ve been telling you BOTH major parties, along with your so-called “libertarians” are corporatist.

I know you have. By your definition, anyone to the right of Stalin is a "corpratist."

We’ve shown you have no idea what a liberal is

Whatever that is, its not you. Clearly.

In corporatist America, democracy is a radical notion to be suppressed.

Last I checked Americans are still voting in elections. Nah, what you've always argued for and defended is socialism at best... that's when you weren't defending full blown communism - the most blood thirsty system of government ever conceived by man.

Now, on to the final argument of the Radical Right Authoritarian John Bircher type fanatics:

Last I checked Americans are still voting in elections. Nah, what you've always argued for and defended is socialism at best... that's when you weren't defending full blown communism - the most blood thirsty system of government ever conceived by man.

Yes, it’s The Famous Radical Right Authoritarian “Commie Card” (TM), the ultimate expression in blind ideological fury and resentment.

As we all know, defending democracy and calling out corporatist warmongering is whatcha call “full blown commanism”. Yessiree, you betcha!

Thank you once again for the perfect profile of Right Wing authoritarianism.

NOTE TO READERS: Free0352 has proposed that all criminal acts committed on U.S. soil warrant a declaration of war. He has just denied due process to suspected criminals for their suspected acts of criminality.

"...this is where Jeff and Dave will disqualify 90% of the Democrat party for not being liberal enough."

You speak of liberalism as if it were a four-letter word. That's funny. I can't speak for Dave, but personally I'm proud to be open-minded and a believer in justice for all -- not for a select few. Corporatism is the mitigating factor in this era that limits this. The single Corporatist Party (i.e., both the Republican wing and the Democratic wing) shares many similarities to the National Socialist Party of prewar Germany. It will become more apparent as the years progress. Your tea party affiliates will take the lead in the march over the cliff.

I'm sure you're proud. Tools always are.

By the way, it's the "Democrat[ic]" Party.

"This is how you know they are extremists."

More of the pot calling the kettle black.

"This nonsense has been so debunked twoofers have become favorite punchlines for he likes of Bill Maher."

No, it hasn't. As previously mentioned on several occasions, more and more Americans are disbelieving the official government explanation ("fairytale"). Truth always wins in the end.

I also mentioned why Bill Maher doesn't join the fray. He enjoys his job with HBO.

"Thats like saying [Alex Jones is] both chocolate and vanilla. The two are mutually exclusive.

Hey, he's the one who claims to be Libertarian and conservative. You're both also. Your stated positions support this. (Why do you think it's such an incredible impossibility?)

"BTW, I'll never get the brain cells back I lost watching that bullshit."

True. Once gone, they're gone, and you don't get 'em back. One thing's for sure, that depleted uranium you helped scatter around Iraq is probably eating your braincells by the trillions. You'll be more of a bubbling idiot than you are now, by the time you turn fifty. That is, if the poison doesn't kill you before.

The amount of birth defects have skyrocketed in Iraq since you and your lawless bandits poisoned their environment. You must be proud of yourself for giving them the gift of "democracy".

"Rest assured I take your disdain as a badge of honor."

I'm sure you do. Hitler undoubtedly felt the same way when confronted by his opponents.

"Now tell us again how the ninjas smuggled in tons of red phosphorus and nobody noticed."

I don't believe I ever speculated on that, but it certainly happened. It probably wasn't difficult. Closing off floors of the buildings and having access to the core through the elevator shafts made it look like "maintenance as usual". No great shakes. Being in full view is the best cover.

By the way, have I ever used the term "ninjas" to describe the perpetrators? Please point out where I made this claim. I already offered all my assets to you if you found the use of the word by me.

Please keep supporting the official government fairytale. It suits you well.

Free0352 has proposed that all criminal acts committed on U.S. soil warrant a declaration of war.

Uh... yeah. Killing 3000 Americans is an act of war. Duh. It was an act of war in 2001 and an act of war when the Japanese did it in 1941. That's as major an act of war as it gets. What were we going to do... send a couple of homicide detectives to Afghanistan with a warrant? You're ridiculous. By your standard, we should have sent a couple of Hawaii's finest to Tokyo to arrest Yamamoto, Tojo and the Emperor after Pear Harbor. I'm so sure that would work...

Rational sane people think blowing up the WTC and the Pentagon goes a little above and beyond criminality war as retaliation. You know... one of those things where we kill the enemy unless they surrender. And those who do surrender get put in camps till their side gives it up. Thats what we should have done... and that is just what we did in response to 9-11.

You speak of liberalism as if it were a four-letter word

I spoke of liberals like Al Gore and Ted Kennedy as people I agree with... at least at the time they said what they did about Iraq in the quotes I linked in my last post.

Your tea party affiliates will take the lead in the march over the cliff.

Whatever makes you think I'm part of the tea party? They're conservatives. I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian.

By the way, it's the "Democrat[ic]" Party.

Its full of Democrats, so that's what I call it. I'll start taking their commitment to Democracy seriously when they end the caucus system they use to nominate candidates.

more and more Americans are disbelieving the official government explanation

And and as previously stated thats bullshit. You can't even sell hard core liberals who HATE George Bush like Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, and Noam Chomskey. The only people on your side of this are kooks like Alex Jones.

Hey, he's the one who claims to be Libertarian and conservative

He can claim he's a fairy princess too, but that won't mean he'll sprout wings and pixie dust. He'd probably claim to be Bugs Bunny if it would get more idiots to listen to his whacked out conspiracy theories about 9-11 being an inside job and "corporatism." You probably would too.

Its cute how you and Dave will disqualify every actual liberal when the truth is its YOU TWO who aren't liberals. You're ... well... whatever you are. It isn't liberal.

Hitler undoubtedly felt the same way when confronted by his opponents.

As did people who wore Hitler's disdain as a badge. Trust me when I tell you, I'm more than happy to be in the main stream and you and Alex Jones can have each other.

I don't believe I ever speculated on that, but it certainly happened

Yes, ninjas snuck tons of toxic, highly explosive chemicals past the tens of thousands of people who work in the WTC and hid it in the walls.

Riiiiiiiight.

have I ever used the term "ninjas" to describe the perpetrators?

Well I figured since we're indulging your fairy tail, we might as well spice up the story with ninjas. If you don't want them in it, I suppose we could use wizards or terminators or ghosts or anything else. Did James Bond help?

You certainly haven't proven it did. Did Iraq comply with inspections it agreed to as to its nuclear program?

Nope.

That was reason enough for the war Dave. Or are you really suggesting Iraq was in compliance? Or are you suggesting their lack of compliance should have been tolerated – even with Saddam and his family’s insane history?

Are you sure you know what it means?

Are you? You're the one who rejects all the facts, the legal documents, and the public record. Then laughably claim that’s what I'm doing when I do accept legal documents, and public record and don't take your wild conspiracy theories seriously.

"Bush not mentioning Iraq is proof the Bush Admin lied because they didn't specifically absolve Iraq of 9-11... Until they did.., specifically." Really? You do understand that would get you an F on the term paper right? I'm not claiming to be a rocket scientist over here, but you can't even meet basic tests of logic... the kind most children can make.

In recent news, Ohio Republicans, unilaterally... blah blah blah.

I'm not familiar with Ohio election law. Wouldn't surprise me though. The GOP got my candidate thrown off the ballot in 2012 with a bunch of dirty tricks - so I boycotted the 2012 election remember?

I'm not in the GOP dude, I'm not claiming they're all sweetness and light. In fact, I think they aren't. I think they SUCK.

That's why I'm a Libertarian. You'll have to wait around a long time before you'll see me wonk for the GOP. But at the same time, I'm not going to let stand claims the GOP did things they didn't do – anymore than I accept misconceptions about the Dems. Misconceptions like claiming George Bush lied about the Iraq war.

It’s important we're precise when talking about policy, and you are not. You frankly just make shit up. And that prevents a grown up conversation. That's why this always leads back to your stupid aluminum tubes. Because you refuse to acknowledge fact and instead bitterly cling to your misconceptions - and I won't yield to it. I stubbornly keep on correcting you. It’s like you believe if you just keep saying wrong things, eventually I’ll give up and pretend I believe it too. I won’t. I’ll never stop correcting you.

You can't argue for or against the Iraq war based on its merits - you can't accurately claim Bush lied. So instead you blare slogans like your blog was an ANSWER rally.Here are the facts.

There were WMD in Iraq, Iraq didn't comply with the '91 cease fire, they didn't comply with inspections they agreed to comply with, they did fire on US planes over 4000 times, they did try to assassinate GHWB, members of Al ‘Qaeda were in Iraq - and are still. Those are all facts.

By all means, make a case those FACTs don't warrant a war. That's a reasonable discussion. But we can't have one because instead of looking at the facts you bleat wild conspiracy theories that defy common axioms. Well Dave, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own custom fabricated facts. And if you choose dumb down a policy discussion into "Bush Lied, Kids Died," I’ll never get sick of proving you wrong with facts, legal documents, and public record links. Resort to drooling bumper sticker slogans, to the casual reader I become more and more right the more you chant them.

I don't always agree with the GOP, in fact I seldom do. I don't even 100% agree with the GOP on how the Iraq war was run.

I can however, determine what a fact is and what isn't. I linked every claim I've made above in the past and I can again.

You can't find me one quote where Bush claimed Iraq was behind 9-11. Not one. You can't possibly claim Iraq was cooperative with weapons inspectors. It’s a totally laughable contention. Deal with it.

So why not instead of spouting "Bush Lied™ like some brain dead freshman looking to hook at some brain dead protest - you accept reality and have a conversation like a logical grown up?

Yeah, didn't think so chief. Go back to your slogans. I can keep linking actual government documents and major, respected news sources all day. Its too easy.

At this point you're still rejecting facts. Until you accept the truth you're stuck on stupid. We haven't ever had a discussion on the merits of the Iraq war on the facts because you're too busy spewing conspiracy theories and chanting "Bush Lied - Kids Died™" That shit is worn out like yesterday's Che Guevara shirts. There is a reason the Democrat party dropped that like a rock. It served its political purpose and now its dead, because it wasn't the Iraq war that was based on a lie... it was the anti-war movement who claimed that it was.

Bush didn't lie, and yes American servicemen did die. You can claim they died for a foolish cause. That is debatable. However, you cannot claim it was a fraudulent one without saying untrue things.

I've proven over and over that nearly everything in Congress' authorization for use of force in Iraq was true. From the presence of Al'Qaeda in Iraq, to Iraq's possession of WMD, to its attacks on US Airmen, to its plots against the lives of US Presidents, to its support of terrorist groups, to its blatant breach of the 1991 cease fire it willfully signed - after losing a war over Iraq's invasion of its neighbor and our ally. Not to mention its crimes against humanity committed on Iraq's own people. If you want to take up the case that those things don't justify war - fine. Take it up. But you haven't. You haven't even tried. Instead all you have done is claim the above facts just aren't true. I've provided link after link and source after source that they are indeed true. If your argument is that the Iraq war was wrong because it was based on a lie- you are incorrect. You fail. If you have something else to offer - some other argument that the above facts didn't justify the use of force we used - that no force should have been used or some lesser force - that is a viable argument. But "Bush Lied, Kids Died," is false on its face. Its a non-starter because while it may fit into the silly make believe world in your mind - it has no relationship to reality and while it may get hairy chicks at rallys to dig you, I ain't buying it.

Free0352: "Killing 3000 Americans is an act of war....It was an act of war in 2001 and an act of war when the Japanese did it in 1941. That's as major an act of war as it gets. What were we going to do... send a couple of homicide detectives to Afghanistan with a warrant? By your standard, we should have sent a couple of Hawaii's finest to Tokyo to arrest Yamamoto, Tojo and the Emperor after Pear Harbor."

Japanese aircraft attacked Pearl Harbor, so we declared war against Japan. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, American Airlines aircraft and United Airlines aircraft crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Thank you...your logic has just simplified what needs to be done! Arrest American Airlines and United Airlines!

"...at least at the time they said what they did about Iraq in the quotes I linked..."

Hindsight's a beautiful thing. It always has a way of showing you how wrong you've been in the past.

"The only people on your side of this are kooks like Alex Jones."

Well, I'm not so sure about that. As time moves forward, it's apparent that more and more see a government conspiracy in one form or another. Some polls are close to a dead heat!

I suspect that, given the government's continuing aptitude for lying, along with a continuing course toward world economic collapse, within six or eight years most people will believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy either abetted by, or created by, elements within the U.S. government.

It's not only Alex Jones and me.

"You're ... well... whatever you are. It isn't liberal.

You're too young to have grown up in an era of liberalism. You've never experienced it, therefore you're unfamiliar with it. There are only a handful left in government. The rest have sold out to corporatism. As for me, I'm beyond any label you care to stick on me, other than I seek truth, and justice -- for all.

"[Alex Jones would] probably claim to be Bugs Bunny if it would get more idiots to listen to his whacked out conspiracy theories about 9-11 being an inside job and 'corporatism.' You probably would too."

No, no Bugs Bunny for me. That's more your moniker, given you'd like all of us to follow you down the rabbit hole and its imaginary fairytale of illogical nonsense.

I'll stick with real science.

"Yes, ninjas snuck tons of toxic, highly explosive chemicals past the tens of thousands of people who work in the WTC and hid it in the walls."

Again, I'm almost positive they weren't ninjas, but explosives brought down all three of those towers. That's why a trial is needed -- to determine exactly how it was done, not to mention to find out who was involved in committing it. Stopping with a faux commission that was assembled with the purpose of backing into an answer that already included al-Qaeda, is worlds away from practicing due process and the rule of law.

Declares the man who believes in the Great Conspiracy of Evil Climate Scientists.

Never mind the “nukular” aluminum tube lie was uttered in the Frickin 2003 STATE OF THE UNION Address. LOL!!

But the voice of the far Right radical authoritarian personality says, “Who cares”.

“No links, no quotes.”

I wonder how someone who claims, “Bush never lied” would explain this random dozen doozies...

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."- George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons."- George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."- George Bush, March 17 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003.

"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."- Bush in October 2002.

"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."- Bush in January 2003 State of the Union address.

"Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."- Bush in February 2003.

"sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network."Powell in his U.N. speech prior to the Iraq War.

"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda."Bush in May 2003.

"Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons."- Cheney in October 2003.

Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."- June 17, 2004.

Of course, none of these are lies to the authoritarian followers. We call them a cult of true believers for good reason.

Bush writes, “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false. No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” So we wonder how many more links and quotes would Free like?

That hasn't been determined through proper legal venue. Absolutely, the government claimed al-Qaida was responsible -- on that same day, if I recall. Unless those planes had the flag of al-Qaida emblazoned on their tails, there's no way to know that for sure.

The aircraft flew the flags of American and United, and that's all we know. Incredibly, no flight data recorders or black boxes were removed from any of the sites (so we're told), so it's really speculative as to whether commercial aircraft were actually involved. It would appear they were, but, then again, I've seen Siegfried & Roy make white lions and tigers disappear right in front of my eyes!

It's really spectacular!

"The Hijackers were immigrants to Afghanistan, fighting for Al'Qaeda - supported by the Taliban."

Sure, that's what the government claimed, but there wasn't any conclusive evidence supporting this claim. Once again, that's what the official narrative has led us to believe.

"Nobody, not even ultra liberals takes that seriously."

I already provided you a link supporting my claim that the number of believers of a conspiracy (other that the "fairytale conspiracy") is growing. So, right off the bat, your claim of "nobody" is false and unsubstantiated.

"You can't even get Noam Chomskey [sic] on board and he hates George Bush."

That's alright. Whether Chomsky publicly supports an alternate version that's within the confines of the Laws of Motion and the physical capabilities of a Boeing aircraft, doesn't make it true or false. Just because Mr. Chomsky is a brilliant mind, I'd never fly in an aircraft that he designed, and nor would I ask his opinion on the best way to demolish a steel and concrete skyscraper.

"Your definition of liberalism has never had an era."

Neither has your definition of free enterprise. Your "invisible hand" has been whacking off throughout the annals of time.

"You've been shown the real science..."

No, steel-frame buildings don't collapse in free-fall because of standard office fires (and neither do they pulverize into dust). If they do, it wasn't because of the office fire alone.

As mentioned at least a dozen times before, they had help.

"...you chose the fairy tail with the ninjas instead... just like Alex Jones."

I'm not aware that the legendary and mythical fairies had "tails", but I'll save this for another time.

I've already mentioned that I've never claimed ninjas were involved. I'm actually quite positive no Japanese were, although it should be up to a legitimate court of law to make that determination.